1: \documentstyle[12pt,epsf,epsfig]{article}

2: \hoffset -0.2in 

3: \textwidth 6in

4: \textheight 8.5in

5: %\setcounter{page}{1} 

6: \parskip 7pt \openup1\jot \parindent=0.5in

7: \topmargin -0.5in

8: 

9: %       the stuff below defines \eqalign and \eqalignno in such a

10: %       way that they will run on Latex

11: \newfont{\thiplo}{msbm10 scaled\magstep 2}

12: \newfont{\gothic}{eufb10 scaled\magstep 2}

13: \newfont{\unc}{eurb10}  

14: \newskip\humongous \humongous=0pt plus 1000pt minus 1000pt

15: \def\caja{\mathsurround=0pt}

16: \def\eqalign#1{\,\vcenter{\openup1\jot \caja

17:         \ialign{\strut \hfil$\displaystyle{##}$&$

18:         \displaystyle{{}##}$\hfil\crcr#1\crcr}}\,}

19: \newif\ifdtup

20: \def\panorama{\global\dtuptrue \openup1\jot \caja

21:         \everycr{\noalign{\ifdtup \global\dtupfalse

22:         \vskip-\lineskiplimit \vskip\normallineskiplimit

23:         \else \penalty\interdisplaylinepenalty \fi}}}

24: \def\eqalignno#1{\panorama \tabskip=\humongous 

25:         \halign to\displaywidth{\hfil$\displaystyle{##}$

26:         \tabskip=0pt&$\displaystyle{{}##}$\hfil 

27:         \tabskip=\humongous&\llap{$##$}\tabskip=0pt

28:         \crcr#1\crcr}}

29: %	eqalignnoleft is eqalignno positioned flush left on the page

30: \def\eqalignnoleft#1{\panorama \tabskip=0pt

31:         \halign to\displaywidth{\hfil$\displaystyle{##}$

32:         \tabskip=0pt&$\displaystyle{{}##}$\hfil 

33:         \tabskip=\humongous&\llap{$##$}\tabskip=0pt

34:         \crcr#1\crcr}} 

35: %	\eqright causes display equation material between \eqright and \cr

36: %	to be positioned flush right on the page.  This is useful

37: %	in breaking long lines in a display equation.

38: %	\eqright is usually used in conjunction with \eqalignnoleft.

39: \def\eqright #1\cr{\noalign{\hfill$\displaystyle{{}#1}$}}

40: %	\eqleft causes display equation material between \eqleft and \cr

41: %	to be positioned flush left on the page.

42: \def\eqleft #1\cr{\noalign{\noindent$\displaystyle{{}#1}$\hfill}}

43: %       The oldref and fig macros are for formatting

44: %       references and figure lists at the end of the paper.

45: %       If you type \oldref{1}Dirac, P.A.M. you will get

46: %       [1] Dirac, P.A.M.

47: %       Same goes for \fig except you get Figure 2.1

48: \def\oldrefledge{\hangindent3\parindent}

49: \def\oldreffmt#1{\rlap{[#1]} \hbox to 2\parindent{}}

50: \def\oldref#1{\par\noindent\oldrefledge \oldreffmt{#1}

51:         \ignorespaces}

52: \def\figledge{\hangindent=1.25in}

53: \def\figfmt#1{\rlap{Figure {#1}} \hbox to 1in{}}

54: \def\fig#1{\par\noindent\figledge \figfmt{#1}

55:         \ignorespaces}

56: %

57: %       This defines et al., i.e., e.g., cf., etc.

58: \def\ie{\hbox{\it i.e.}{}}      \def\etc{\hbox{\it etc.}{}}

59: \def\eg{\hbox{\it e.g.}{}}      \def\cf{\hbox{\it cf.}{}}

60: \def\etal{\hbox{\it et al.}}

61: \def\dash{\hbox{---}}

62: %       common physics symbols

63: \def\tr{\mathop{\rm tr}}            

64: \def\Tr{\mathop{\rm Tr}}

65: \def\partder#1#2{{\partial #1\over\partial #2}}

66: \def\secder#1#2#3{{\partial~2 #1\over\partial #2 \partial #3}}

67: \def\bra#1{\left\langle #1\right|}

68: \def\ket#1{\left| #1\right\rangle}

69: \def\VEV#1{\left\langle #1\right\rangle}

70: \def\ME#1#2{\left\langle #1\right|\left. #2 \right\rangle}

71: \def\gdot#1{\rlap{$#1$}/}

72: \def\abs#1{\left| #1\right|}

73: 

74: \def\pr#1{#1~\prime}

75: \def\ltap{\raisebox{-.4ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.4ex}{$<$}}

76: \def\gtap{\raisebox{-.4ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.4ex}{$>$}}

77: % \contract is a differential geometry contraction sign _|

78: \def\contract{\makebox[1.2em][c]{

79:         \mbox{\rule{.6em}{.01truein}\rule{.01truein}{.6em}}}}

80: %	The command \sectioneq produces numbering of equations by section

81: \def\holdtheequation{\arabic}

82: \def\sectioneq{\def\theequation{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}{\let

83: \holdsection=\section\def\section{\setcounter{equation}{0}\holdsection}}}%

84: 

85: %	The commands \beginletts and \endletts delimit sections of

86: %	text in which successive equation numbers are distinguished by 

87: %	sequentially appending lower case letters 

88: \newcounter{holdequation}\def

89: 	\beginletts{\begingroup\setcounter

90: 	{holdequation}{\value{equation}}\addtocounter

91: 	{equation}{1}\edef

92: 	\holdtheequation{\theequation}\setcounter

93: 	{equation}{0}\def

94: 	\theequation{\holdtheequation\alph{equation}}}

95: \def\endletts{\endgroup\setcounter

96: 	{equation}{\value{holdequation}}\refstepcounter{equation}}

97: %	The command \num provides automatic numbering in LaTex when used in 

98: %	place of (equation number) in PlainTeX-style equations

99: \def\num{(\refstepcounter{equation}\theequation)}

100: %	\auto is shorthand for \eqno\num

101: \def\auto{\eqno(\refstepcounter{equation}\theequation)}

102: %	The commands \begineq and \endeq provide for one vertically 

103: %	centered automatic number for multiline equations

104: \def\begineq #1\endeq{$$ \refstepcounter{equation}\eqalign{#1}\eqno

105: 	(\theequation) $$}

106: %	The command \contlimit puts (a\rightarrow0) 

107: %	under \longrightarrow

108: \def\contlimit{\,{\hbox{$\longrightarrow$}\kern-1.8em\lower1ex

109: \hbox{${\scriptstyle (a\rightarrow0)}$}}\,}

110: %	The command \centeron#1#2 backs up #2 so that it is centered 

111: %	over #1.  \centerover and \centerunder work like \centeron,

112: %	except that they raise or lower #2 to place it over or under

113: %	#1.

114: \def\centeron#1#2{{\setbox0=\hbox{#1}\setbox1=\hbox{#2}\ifdim

115: \wd1>\wd0\kern.5\wd1\kern-.5\wd0\fi

116: \copy0\kern-.5\wd0\kern-.5\wd1\copy1\ifdim\wd0>\wd1

117: \kern.5\wd0\kern-.5\wd1\fi}}

118: %

119: \def\centerover#1#2{\centeron{#1}{\setbox0=\hbox{#1}\setbox

120: 1=\hbox{#2}\raise\ht0\hbox{\raise\dp1\hbox{\copy1}}}}

121: %

122: \def\centerunder#1#2{\centeron{#1}{\setbox0=\hbox{#1}\setbox

123: 1=\hbox{#2}\lower\dp0\hbox{\lower\ht1\hbox{\copy1}}}}

124: %	The commands \lsim and \gsim provide symbols for 

125: %	`less than of order' and `greater than of order'

126: \def\lsim{\;\centeron{\raise.35ex\hbox{$<$}}{\lower.65ex\hbox

127: {$\sim$}}\;}

128: \def\gsim{\;\centeron{\raise.35ex\hbox{$>$}}{\lower.65ex\hbox

129: {$\sim$}}\;}

130: %	The command \st (for stroke) puts a slash through the succeeding 

131: %	character in math mode

132: \def\st#1{\centeron{$#1$}{$/$}}

133: %	The command \newcases works like \cases except that 

134: %	the baselines and type size are the same as for

135: %	display equations

136: \def\newcases#1{\left\{\,\vcenter{\normalbaselines\openup1\jot \caja 

137: \ialign{\strut$\displaystyle{##}$\hfil

138: &\quad##\hfil\crcr#1\crcr}}\right.}

139: %	The command \super inserts the characters in its argument as a 

140: %	superscript with the correct spacefactor.

141: \def\super#1{\ifmmode \hbox{\textsuper{#1}}\else\textsuper{#1}\fi}

142: \def\textsuper#1{\newcount\holdspacefactor\holdspacefactor=\spacefactor

143: $^{#1}$\spacefactor=\holdspacefactor}

144: %	The command \supercite redefines \cite so that it makes superscripted 

145: %	citation numbers. It is to be used in conjunction with the 

146: %	\label command (for example, with one of the list-making 

147: %	environments).  The command \oldcite restores the original LaTeX 

148: %	\cite command.

149: \let\holdcite=\cite

150: \def\supercite{\def\cite{\newcite}}

151: \def\oldcite{\def\cite{\holdcite}}

152: \def\newcite#1{\super{\newcount\citenumber\citenumber=0\getcite#1,@, }}

153: \def\getcite#1,{\advance\citenumber by1

154: \def\getcitearg{#1}\def\lastarg{@}

155: \ifnum\citenumber=1

156: \ref{#1}\let\next=\getcite\else\ifx\getcitearg\lastarg\let\next=\relax

157: \else ,\ref{#1}\let\next=\getcite\fi\fi\next}

158: %	The command \nskip gives a vertical skip of the specified 

159: %	dimension (in braces) without including any extra \baselineskip 

160: %	or \parskip.

161: \def\nskip#1{\vbox{}\vskip-\baselineskip\vskip#1\vskip-\parskip\noindent}

162: %	The command \lskip skips vertically by one line, i.e., 

163: %	the current \baselineskip.  There is no indentation unless 

164: %	\indent is specified.

165: \def\lskip{\vskip\baselineskip\vskip-\parskip\noindent}

166: \def\np{Nucl.\ Phys.\ }

167: \def\pr{Phys.\ Rev.\ }

168: \def\prl{Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ }

169: \def\pl{Phys.\ Lett.\ }

170: \def\arnps{Ann.\ Rev.\ Nucl.\ Part.\ Sci.\ }

171: \def\mn{\mu\nu}

172: \def\epm{e^+e^-}

173: \def\pom{{\rm P\kern -0.53em\llap I\,}}

174: \def\spom{{\rm P\kern -0.36em\llap \small I\,}}

175: \def\sspom{{\rm P\kern -0.33em\llap \footnotesize I\,}}

176: \def\gev{{\rm GeV}}

177: \def\mev{{\rm MeV}}

178: \def\parens#1{\left(#1\right)}

179: \relax

180: \def\contlimit{\,{\hbox{$\longrightarrow$}\kern-1.8em\lower1ex

181: \hbox{${\scriptstyle (a\rightarrow0)}$}}\,}

182: \def\upon #1/#2 {{\textstyle{#1\over #2}}}

183: \relax

184: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}} 

185: \def\srf#1{$^{#1}$\ }

186: \def\mainhead#1{\setcounter{equation}{0}\addtocounter{section}{1}

187:   \vbox{\begin{center}\large\bf #1\end{center}}\nobreak\par}

188: \sectioneq

189: \def\subhead#1{\bigskip\vbox{\noindent\bf #1}\nobreak\par}

190: \def\rf#1#2#3{{\bf #1}, #2 (19#3)}

191: \def\autolabel#1{\auto\label{#1}}

192: \def\til#1{\centeron{\hbox{$#1$}}{\lower 2ex\hbox{$\char'176$}}}

193: \def\tild#1{\centeron{\hbox{$\,#1$}}{\lower 2.5ex\hbox{$\char'176$}}}

194: \def\sumtil{\centeron{\hbox{$\displaystyle\sum$}}{\lower

195: -1.5ex\hbox{$\widetilde{\phantom{xx}}$}}}

196: \def\sumtilt{\sum^{\raisebox{-.15mm}{\hspace{-1.75mm}$\widetilde{}$}}\ }

197: \def\gltext{$\raisebox{1mm}{\centerunder{$\scriptscriptstyle 

198: 	>$}{$\scriptscriptstyle <$}}$}

199: \def\intcent#1{\centerunder{$\displaystyle\int$}{\raisebox{-2.2mm}{$ #1 $}}}

200: \def\kbar{\underline{k}}

201: \def\qbar{\underline{q}}

202: \def\kbarsl{\underline{\st k}}

203: \def\qbarsl{\underline{\st q}}

204: \def\parens#1{\left(#1\right)}

205: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}

206: \def\pbar{\underline{p}}

207: \def\pbarsl{\underline{\st p}}

208: \def\q{\unc q}

209: \def\p{\unc p}

210: %-------------------------------------------------------------------

211: 

212: \newcommand{\bit}{\begin{itemize}}

213: \newcommand{\eit}{\end{itemize}}

214: \newcommand{\cl}{\centerline}

215: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}

216: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}

217: \newcommand{\beqa}{\begin{eqnarray}}

218: \newcommand{\eeqa}{\end{eqnarray}}

219: 

220: 

221: %\pagestyle{empty}

222: 

223: \begin{document} 

224: 

225: \begin{titlepage} 

226: 

227: \rightline{\vbox{\halign{&#\hfil\cr

228: &ANL-HEP-PR-02-033 \cr

229: &\today\cr}}} 

230: \vspace{0.25in} 

231: 

232: \begin{center} 

233:  

234: {\large\bf CHIRALITY VIOLATION IN  }

235: 

236: {\large \bf QCD REGGEON INTERACTIONS}\footnote{Work 

237: supported by the U.S.

238: Department of Energy, Division of High Energy Physics, \newline Contracts

239: W-31-109-ENG-38 and DEFG05-86-ER-40272} 

240: \medskip

241: 

242: 

243: Alan. R. White\footnote{arw@hep.anl.gov }

244: 

245: \vskip 0.6cm

246: 

247: \centerline{High Energy Physics Division}

248: \centerline{Argonne National Laboratory}

249: \centerline{9700 South Cass, Il 60439, USA.}

250: \vspace{0.5cm}

251: 

252: \end{center}

253: 

254: \begin{abstract} 

255: The appearance of the triangle graph infra-red axial anomaly

256: in reduced quark loops contributing to  

257: QCD triple-regge interactions is studied. 

258: In a dispersion relation formalism, the anomaly can only

259: be present in the contributions of 

260: unphysical triple discontinuities. In 

261: this paper an asymptotic discontinuity analysis is applied to

262: high-order feynman diagrams to show that the anomaly does indeed 

263: occur in sufficiently high-order reggeized gluon interactions. 

264: The reggeon states involved must contain 

265: reggeized gluon combinations with the quantum 

266: numbers of the anomaly (winding-number) current. 

267: A direct connection with the well-known U(1) problem

268: is thus established. Closely related diagrams that contribute 

269: to the pion/pomeron and 

270: triple pomeron couplings in color superconducting QCD

271: are also discussed.

272: 

273: \end{abstract} 

274: 

275: 

276: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}} \end{titlepage} 

277: 

278: %\setcounter{page}{2}

279: 

280: \mainhead{1. INTRODUCTION} 

281: 

282: It is commonly believed that non-perturbative 

283: quark chirality transitions play an important role    

284: within the QCD bound-state S-Matrix.

285: Assuming that the theory can be quantized via a suitably defined 

286: euclidean path-integral\footnote{We note, though, that the elimination 

287: of unphysical degrees of freedom remains an unsolved problem\cite{vg}.}, 

288: the chirality transitions

289: are understood as originating from gauge-dependent

290: non-perturbative classical solutions with non-trivial topology.

291: Field configurations of this kind produce zero modes

292: of the Dirac operator which\cite{aj} 

293: prevent the gauge-invariant separation of massless fermion fields into  

294: right- and left-handed components that separately create 

295: particles and antiparticles. The resulting violation of  

296: axial charge conservation is described by the 

297: anomalous divergence equation for the U(1) axial current. 

298: While many consequences of chirality violation are understood, for example

299: the generation\cite{gth} of a mass for the $\eta'$, it's full significance  

300: in determining the non-perturbative 

301: massless S-Matrix is far from understood. In particular,

302: the role of chirality violation due to topological gauge fields in 

303: chiral symmetry breaking is the subject of much debate\cite{pet,smi}.

304: 

305: In this paper, and a companion paper\cite{arw02},

306: we provide a completely different 

307: understanding of chirality transitions in the massless, high-energy,

308: QCD bound-state S-Matrix. No mention is made 

309: of euclidean path-integral quantization or topological fields.

310: Rather, as we explain further below, 

311: our arguments are based directly on the singularity structure

312: of high-order feynman diagrams

313: that contribute to the high-energy scattering of bound-states.

314: 

315: It is well established\cite{fkl} 

316: that when the gauge symmetry of QCD is spontaneously broken 

317: general high-energy limits (multi-regge limits) of quark and gluon

318: amplitudes are described perturbatively by reggeon diagrams 

319: in which the reggeons are simply massive, reggeized, gluons and quarks.

320: Both $t$- and $s$- channel unitarity are satisfied.

321: Reggeon interactions are described, in general, 

322: by ``reduced'' feynman diagrams,  

323: obtained from underlying diagrams by placing some propagators on-shell.

324: It is important, however, to distinguish two kinds of interaction vertices. 

325: The simplest kind are those that describe the repeated 

326: interaction of reggeons ``propagating'' in a single reggeon channel (for 

327: which there is only one overall transverse momentum). The well-known BFKL

328: kernel is, essentially, an example of this kind of vertex. The second kind 

329: are the vertices that couple different reggeon channels, the simplest being

330: the triple-regge vertices\cite{gw} that couple three reggeon channels - each

331: carrying a separate transverse momentum. In the massless 

332: theory such vertices should contain the couplings of bound-state

333: reggeons (e.g. pions and nucleons) together with their couplings

334: to the physical pomeron. Effectively, therefore, vertices of this kind 

335: determine the bound-states of the theory and their high-energy scattering

336: amplitudes.

337: 

338: There are, of course, no axial-vector 

339: currents in the QCD interaction but in the reduced diagrams

340: providing the crucial triple-regge vertices,

341: components of an axial-vector interaction can appear. Therefore,

342: we have suggested\cite{arw01} that, in sufficiently high orders,

343: chirality violation due to the infra-red triangle anomaly 

344: should appear in reggeized gluon interactions of this kind.

345: The purpose of this paper is to finally establish that this is the case. 

346: It is necessary, however, to study very high-order diagrams. 

347: 

348: We have long believed\cite{arw84} that the massless, bound-state, 

349: multi-regge, S-Matrix 

350: should be obtainable from the massive reggeon diagrams 

351: once the infra-red role of the chiral anomaly is determined.

352: In previous papers we have outlined\cite{arw98,arw001} how 

353: (appropriately regularized) anomaly interactions can be 

354: the essential element that, in combination with 

355: the infra-red divergences of the massless limit, produce the

356: ``non-perturbative'' 

357: properties of confinement and chiral symmetry breaking.

358: We argued that, while the anomaly interactions

359: cancel when the scattering states are perturbative quarks and gluons,

360: for compound multiregge states with an appropriate infra-red component

361: such interactions dominate and infra-red divergences

362: self-consistently produce the bound-state S-Matrix.

363: However, to demonstrate this via the 

364: construction of a full set of multi-regge 

365: amplitudes is a complicated project which, of necessity,

366: will involve much abstract multi-regge theory. While this construction 

367: is still our eventual goal, as an intermediate step, 

368: we have first developed, in the companion paper to this, 

369: a calculational method that demonstrates the dynamical role of the anomaly 

370: while avoiding the (little known)

371: multi-regge formalism as much as possible. 

372: Light-cone properties of the anomaly are heavily exploited and

373: we are able to show how  

374: both the U(1) and chiral flavor anomaly play essential roles. 

375: 

376: By studying the interaction of (infinite momentum)

377: axial currents we show\cite{arw02} that, when the 

378: SU(3) gauge symmetry is partially broken to SU(2), 

379: U(1) anomaly interactions combine with couplings due to the 

380: flavor anomaly to produce an infra-red divergent amplitude for

381: the scattering of Goldstone boson ``pions'' and ``nucleons''. 

382: The flavor anomaly produces the pion particle poles, 

383: while the U(1) anomaly produces the high-energy 

384: coupling of the pions to the exchanged pomeron. After the divergence is

385: factorized off, as a wee gluon condensate within the scattering states, 

386: the remaining amplitudes have both confinement and chiral

387: symmetry breaking. (The wee gluon condensate can be identified directly

388: with the infra-red component of multi-regge states that 

389: appears in the multi-regge program.)

390: It is apparent that the nature of the pomeron

391: is crucially dependent on chiral symmetry breaking. We anticipate

392: that restoration of

393: full SU(3) gauge symmetry will result from randomization

394: of the SU(2) condensate within SU(3) and that the Critical 

395: Pomeron\cite{cri} will appear.

396: 

397: The main focus of this paper will be on multigluon reggeon inteactions 

398: that are most directly

399: relevant to the general multi-regge program and the pomeron interactions

400: that emerge. However, as we briefly describe at the end of

401: this paper, the multiquark/gluon interaction that provides the pion/pomeron 

402: coupling in \cite{arw02} is very closely related 

403: to the reggeized gluon interactions that we study.

404: We will establish, remarkably perhaps, that for the anomaly 

405: to appear the reggeon states involved must contain 

406: gluon combinations with the quantum 

407: numbers of the anomaly (winding-number) current.

408: The conventional U(1) problem is, therefore, clearly encountered.

409: We will concentrate on isolating the anomaly via infra-red properties.

410: Nevertheless, although we will discuss this only briefly at a few key 

411: points, we expect the infra-red phenomena we discuss 

412: to be connected to ``ultra-violet'' reggeon interaction 

413: problems (involving momenta flowing 

414: around an internal quark loop that are comparable in magnitude to  

415: large external momenta) where 

416: short-distance interactions of the winding number current appear

417: directly. That the anomaly 

418: is a high-order, many gluon, phenomenon

419: is not surprising if the anomaly current, containing a 

420: product of three gluon fields, has to be involved.

421: 

422: Properties of the triangle diagram are discussed 

423: in detail in the companion paper\cite{arw02},

424: where a complete set of the the relevant references is given.

425: For our present purposes we note that 

426: the massless axial-vector graph has an infra-red divergence  

427: that involves a  zero four-momentum fermion 

428: propagator. Both the ``particle'' and ``antiparticle'' poles  

429: of this propagator contribute to the 

430: divergence. The coupling at one end of the propagator can be viewed 

431: as the vertex for production of the particle while simultaneously (and

432: symmetrically) that

433: at the other end describes the production of the antiparticle.

434: If the zero momentum propagator describes a physical

435: transition it implies that there is, necessarily, an accompanying

436: ``spectral flow'' of the fermion energy spectrum so that

437: the production of the antiparticle (or the particle)

438: corresponds to the production of a Dirac hole state, i.e.

439: the absorption of a particle (antiparticle). In this way, 

440: the transition is understood as a ``chirality transition''

441: 

442: In Minkowski space the Dirac zero modes due to topological gauge fields 

443: do indeed produce\cite{aj} spectral flow (with time) of the eigenvalues of

444: the corresponding (gauge-dependent) ``Hamiltonian''. However, since there 

445: is no complete non-perturbative Hamiltonian formalism for massless QCD, 

446: there is no understanding of the full  

447: consequences of spectral flow\footnote{The conventional wisdom is probably 

448: that strong coupling confinement effects overwhelm such phenomena

449: altogether. As we have

450: emphasized elsewhere, we expect our discussion to apply to a weak coupling

451: version of massless QCD in which there is, effectively at least, 

452: an infra-red fixed point.}. The phenomenon we see

453: is, arguably, the minimum spectral flow that could be present (if there is 

454: any). Zero momentum fermion states identified initially 

455: as a particle (within a boundstate) can evolve with time into 

456: a filled vacuum state of the corresponding Dirac sea 

457: and, similarly, filled vacuum states can evolve into particles. (The existence

458: of stable bound states and physical scattering processes in such an

459: environment is clearly far from trivial!).

460: In our analysis spectral flow of this kind is directly

461: introduced by the appearance

462: of the triangle graph infra-red divergence 

463: in reggeized gluon interactions. It is interesting that a 

464: related phenomenon has already been encountered

465: in next-to-leading order calculations\cite{fl0} of the high-energy

466: scattering of massless gluons. A massless gluon triangle diagram

467: occurs in the effective vertex for reggeized gluon exchange and produces 

468: a ``particle/antiparticle transition'' that for gluons is simply an

469: unanticipated helicity transition.

470: 

471: A reggeon interaction vertex can be obtained by calculating

472: the contribution of Feynman diagrams to the simplest multi-regge limit 

473: in which the vertex appears. In \cite{arw01} we distinguished

474: two methods for calculating multi-regge amplitudes - the direct calculation

475: of diagrams in light-cone co-ordinates and the calculation of multiple

476: asymptotic discontinuities with the subsequent use of an asymptotic dispersion

477: relation. Although, the two methods should ultimately produce the same 

478: results, direct light-cone calculations 

479: are impractical for the problem we are discussing. This is because of the 

480: large number of diagrams that could contribute

481: and because the complexity of the diagrams

482: makes a full discussion of 

483: whether or not integration contours are truly trapped, in the asymptotic  

484: limits involved, very difficult. Consequently the asymptotic dispersion 

485: relation method has to be used. In this paper, therefore, we develop

486: methods aimed at directly calculating multiple asymptotic discontinuities.

487: 

488: The form of the asymptotic dispersion relation for a given multi-regge 

489: process is determined by the possible

490: asymptotic multiple discontinuities that satisfy the Steinmann relation

491: property (that the discontinuities occur in non-overlapping 

492: invariant channels).

493: Such discontinuities are explicitly reflected in the analytic structure of 

494: asymptotic amplitudes provided by multi-regge theory and, conversely, 

495: using the dispersion relation, multi-regge

496: amplitudes can be calculated directly 

497: from the discontinuities. In \cite{arw02} we 

498: described how the appearance of the anomaly pole in the elementary three 

499: current amplitude could be understood as due to an unphysical triangle 

500: landau singularity appearing (from an unphysical sheet) at the edge of the

501: physical region. Correspondingly, 

502: the crucial feature of the high-order amplitudes that produce reggeon 

503: interactions containing the anomaly

504: is the presence of unphysical multiple discontinuities that 

505: satisfy the Steinmann relation property and

506: approach physical scattering regions 

507: only asymptotically. 

508: (This implies that they correspond to contour trappings that would be very 

509: difficult to demonstrate using direct light-cone calculations.)

510: Discontinuities of this kind are present in 

511: complex (imaginary momentum) parts of the asymptotic region for 

512: sufficiently complicated many-particle multi-regge 

513: processes, the simplest of which is the full triple-regge region\cite{gw}

514: that we study in this paper.

515: Because they

516: are in non-overlapping channels these discontinuities can 

517: (and must) consistently 

518: appear in the asymptotic amplitudes that describe also the 

519: real physical region behavior. 

520: 

521: The familiar amplitudes that appear in multi-regge

522: production processes (such as 

523: those that contribute to the BFKL equation\cite{fkl}) 

524: do not contain unphysical multiple discontinuities.

525: Rather they contain only multiple discontinuities

526: that are naturally interpreted as due to a succession of physical

527: region on-shell scattering processes. (The necessity for a

528: physical time-ordering of such processes then determines the absence of

529: overlapping channel discontinuities.) Because physical region multiple

530: discontinuities involve only physical amplitudes and physical intermediate

531: states, when they are calculated using the perturbative amplitudes

532: of the massless theory, they can not contain chirality transitions

533: associated with particle/antiparticle ambiguities. Therefore,

534: when only production processes are 

535: involved (i.e. at what we might call the BFKL level of multi-regge theory) 

536: there is no possibility for ``chirality violation''. 

537: 

538: A priori, there is no reason why unphysical multiple discontinuities 

539: should not contain potential chirality

540: transitions when calculated perturbatively. Nevertheless, 

541: the occurence of the infra-red anomaly within such discontinuities

542: is very subtle.

543: The divergence is produced by a quark loop that reduces to a triangle

544: by the placing of many propagators 

545: on-shell. Of the three propagators associated with the 

546: triangle diagram, one must  

547: carry the zero momentum that allows a chirality

548: transition while the other two carry the same light-like momentum. 

549: The additional on-shell propagators have to be associated with a 

550: triple discontinuity in such a way that (when all transverse momenta are 

551: zero) they also can

552: all carry the same light-cone momentum (relative to the direction of

553: the loop momentum). It is obvious that this requirement

554: can not be satisfied by a physical triple discontinuity and, in fact, it is 

555: very difficult to satisfy. (As we briefly discuss towards the end of 

556: this paper, this difficulty is likely to be closely related to

557: the complexity involved in having local interactions of the

558: anomaly current appear in the ultraviolet region of reggeon interaction

559: vertices.) Indeed, we will see that

560: by itself this requirement is sufficient to

561: ensure that (in the obtained reggeon interaction)

562: at least three reggeons are present in each reggeon channel.

563: Requiring that the spin structure that generates 

564: the anomaly also be 

565: present, then further restricts the contributing triple discontinuities 

566: to those originating from a small class of feynman diagrams.

567: The discontinuities involved are truly unphysical in that they

568: correspond to three ``asymptotic pseudothresholds''

569: (or, in

570: more technical S-Matrix language, ``mixed $\alpha$ singularities'')

571: each of which contains particles (effectively)

572: going in opposite time directions. Not surprisingly, though, this provides

573: just the right circumstances for the anomaly to appear.

574: 

575: As we noted above, the obtained reggeon interactions 

576: are of such high order that

577: the minimum circumstances in which they can occur (between color zero

578: reggeon states) is when each of the states involved carries

579: the quantum numbers of the U(1) anomaly current. 

580: The lower-order diagrams considered in \cite{arw01}

581: remain valuable to discuss for illustrative processes but the analysis

582: within this paper shows that they are essentially irrelevant. We

583: do not give any detailed discussion of further cancelations 

584: amongst the diagrams we consider. We note, however, that

585: the signature rule of \cite{arw01} implies that the full vertex 

586: for three reggeon states, each of which carries

587: the quantum numbers of the U(1) anomaly current, must vanish.

588: In the pion/pomeron vertex obtained in \cite{arw02} there

589: are, in addition to the three gluon reggeons, a 

590: quark/antiquark pair in the pion, and an additional reggeon in the pomeron.

591: In the triple pomeron vertex, which we also briefly discuss,  

592: there is an additional reggeon in each channel.

593: In following papers we hope to lay out the details 

594: of the construction of the full multi-regge S-Matrix alluded to above.

595: For the moment we note only that triple-regge interactions of

596: the kind we consider here will contribute generally to the vertices 

597: and interactions of the reggeon bound states that emerge 

598: and refer to the brief discussion 

599: in \cite{arw01}, and also to the outline in

600: \cite{arw001}, for more details. 

601: 

602: \newpage

603: 

604: \mainhead{2. MULTIPLE DISCONTINUITIES AND THE STEINMANN RELATIONS.} 

605: 

606: \subhead{2.1 Physical Region Discontinuities}

607: 

608: The Steinmann relations originated in axiomatic field theory\cite{ste}. They 

609: (essentially) describe the restrictions that the time-ordering of interactions

610: places on the combinations of intermediate states that can occur in a

611: scattering process. For on-shell S-Matrix amplitudes their significance is

612: most immediately appreciated in the approximation that we ignore higher-order

613: Landau singularities and consider only the normal threshold branch points (and

614: stable particle poles) that occur in individual channel invariants. The

615: Steinmann relations then say that simultaneous thresholds (and/or poles) can

616: not occur in overlapping channels. (Channels overlap if they contain a common

617: subset of external particles.) As a result an $N$-point amplitude has at most

618: $N-3$ simultaneous cuts (or poles) 

619: in distinct invariants. The possible combinations of

620: cuts can be described by tree diagrams with three-point vertices in which each

621: internal line corresponds to a channel invariant in which there is a cut due

622: to intermediate state thresholds - as illustrated in Fig.~2.1 for the 7-point

623: amplitude.

624: \begin{center}

625: \epsfxsize=4in

626: \epsffile{chir2.ps}

627: 

628: Fig.~2.1 A Tree Diagram Representing Simultaneous Invariant Cuts.

629: \end{center}

630: (As usual, $s_{12}=(P_1+P_2)^2~, s_{123}=(P_1+P_2+P_3)^2~,$

631: etc.) The set of all combinations of thresholds (and poles) allowed by the 

632: Steinmann relations is the basic singularity structure of all 

633: scattering amplitudes. The higher-order Landau singularities are 

634: believed\cite{arw00} to emerge from the normal

635: thresholds in a manner that, for most purposes, makes them a secondary effect.

636: 

637: Conversely, the combination of cuts represented 

638: by a particular tree diagram can

639: be directly associated with a set of physical scattering processes. As

640: illustrated in Fig.~2.2, this is the set of all processes (involving all the

641: external particles of the diagram as either ingoing or outgoing particles) in

642: which it is kinematically possible for all of the internal lines to be

643: replaced by physical 

644: multiparticle states\footnote{We do not distinguish processes in

645: which ingoing and outgoing particles are interchanged via CPT conjugation}.

646: \begin{center}

647: \epsfxsize=6in

648: \epsffile{chir4.ps}

649: 

650: Fig.~2.2 Physical Scattering Processes Corresponding to Fig.~2.1.

651: \end{center}

652: The hatched segments represent physical intermediate states that, if they are 

653: all placed on shell, give (essentially) the associated multiple discontinuity.

654: 

655: The Steinmann relations play a fundamental role in multi-regge theory. It is 

656: possible to show\cite{arw00} that in a physical multi-regge asymptotic region 

657: the analytic structure of scattering amplitudes can be treated as if only 

658: normal thresholds satisfying the Steinmann relations were present. In effect,

659: higher-order Landau singularities are suppressed. This has the very important

660: consequence that only the normal threshold cuts in individual channel 

661: invariants need be represented by multi-regge

662: asymptotic formulae. Furthermore, if we consider only the multi-regge limits

663: accessible in $2 \to M$ production processes, it can be shown that the maximal

664: number (M-1) of simultaneous thresholds is encountered asymptotically only in

665: physical regions. This is a generalization of the cut-plane analyticity

666: property familiar from elastic scattering.

667: 

668: \subhead{2.2 Unphysical Multiple Discontinuities}

669: 

670: If we consider the multi-regge regions of $M \to M'$ scattering amplitudes

671: ($M,M' \geq 3$) there is a significant change. To understand the point 

672: involved consider the simplest case of the tree diagram of

673: Fig.~2.3. At first sight this diagram corresponds only to the 

674: $2 \to 4$ production processes shown. 

675: \begin{center}

676: \epsfxsize=5in

677: \epsffile{chir3.ps}

678: 

679: Fig.~2.3 A Tree Diagram and Corresponding Physical Scattering Processes.

680: \end{center}

681: The three distinct scattering processes are distinguished 

682: by different constraints on the invariants, i.e.

683: $$

684: \eqalign{\hbox{i)}& ~\sqrt{s_{12}} ~> ~\sqrt{s_{34}}+\sqrt{s_{56}}~,~~ \cr

685: \hbox{ii)}&~ \sqrt{s_{34}} ~> ~\sqrt{s_{12}}+\sqrt{s_{56}}~,~~\cr

686: \hbox{iii)}&~ \sqrt{s_{56}} ~>~ \sqrt{s_{12}}+\sqrt{s_{34}} }

687: \auto\label{mag}

688: $$

689: We can also regard the three processes involved as distinguished by the 

690: selection of one

691: pair of particles as incoming, which then must have energy larger than the

692: sum of the subenergies of the other two pairs, which are necessarily in the 

693: outgoing state.

694: 

695: We may wonder about the symmetric asymptotic region in which

696: $$

697: \sqrt{s_{12}} ~\sim ~\sqrt{s_{34}}~\sim~ \sqrt{s_{56}} ~~\to~~ \infty

698: \auto\label{mag1}

699: $$

700: There are no physical scattering processes in this region. However,

701: the three processes of (\ref{mag}) are described by the same (analytically

702: continued) amplitude and so analytic continuation from each of the 

703: physical regions implies that such cuts must be present. 

704: It is, perhaps, natural 

705: that a triple discontinuity should exist that is 

706: symmetric with respect to the three processes of Fig.~2.3. Apparently, though,

707: the symmetry requirement could only be satisfied if all the external

708: particles are in the 

709: final, or initial, state. In fact, as we discuss further 

710: in the next Sections, 

711: if we allow particles to carry complex momenta, a positive 

712: value for a two-particle energy invariant can  

713: be achieved by a combination of an ``incoming'' and an 

714: ``outgoing'' particle in that they carry opposite sign, but imaginary, 

715: energies. Therefore, in the symmetric region it is possible for the 

716: three cuts of Fig.~2.3 

717: to be present if each is associated with such a combination.    

718: We will show in the following that

719: there are unphysical processes (with imaginary momenta) in this region that

720: do produce a triple discontinuity of this kind and we will refer to it as an 

721: ``unphysical triple discontinuity''.

722: 

723: Since the external particles for each cut are both  

724: ingoing and outgoing it is, perhaps, not surprising that intermediate states 

725: appear that also involve

726: such combinations. Indeed, we will see that 

727: this is how a triple discontinuity can contain the 

728: ``particle - antiparticle'' transitions that ultimately provide  

729: the massless chirality transitions that we are looking for. 

730: Since the complex momentum

731: part of (\ref{mag1}) is contained in the triple-regge

732: asymptotic region, a triple 

733: discontinuity of this kind is just what we are looking for.

734: The importance of the triple-regge region is that it is the simplest

735: multi-regge limit in which the vertices appear that provide the couplings

736: of bound-state regge

737: poles such as the pomeron or the pion. For higher-point $M \to M'$

738: amplitudes there is a wide range of unphysical multiple discontinuities 

739: satisfying the Steinmann relations. Bound-state scattering amplitudes can thus

740: appear in which the anomaly is a crucial element.

741: 

742: \newpage

743: 

744: \mainhead{3. THE PHYSICAL REGION ANOMALY AND THE 

745: TRIPLE-REGGE DISPERSION RELATION}

746: 

747: \subhead{3.1 The Triple Regge Limit and Maximally Non-Planar Diagrams} 

748: 

749: In our previous paper\cite{arw01} we studied the full triple-regge

750: limit\cite{gw} of 

751: three-to-three quark scattering. 

752: If we denote the initial momenta as $P_i~, ~i=1,2,3$, and the final momenta 

753: as $- P_{i'} = P_i + Q_i, ~i=1,2,3$,

754: the triple-regge limit can be realized, within the physical region, by taking 

755: each of $P_1,~P_2$ and $P_3$ large 

756: along distinct light-cones, with the momentum transfers $Q_1, Q_2$ and $Q_3$

757: kept finite, i.e.

758: \newline \parbox{3.1in}{

759: $$

760: \eqalign{ P_1~\to&~ P_{1^+}~= ~(p_1,p_1,0,0)~,~~p_1 \to \infty \cr

761: P_2~\to&~ {P_2^+}~= ~(p_2,0,p_2,0)~,~~p_2 \to \infty \cr

762: P_3~\to&~ {P_3^+}~= ~(p_3,0,0,p_3)~,~~p_3 \to \infty  }

763: $$}

764: \parbox{2.9in}{

765: $$ \eqalign{

766: ~~~q_1=Q_1/2~\to&~~ (\hat{q}_1,\hat{q}_1,q_{12},q_{13})\cr

767: ~~~q_2=Q_2/2~\to&~ ~(\hat{q}_2,q_{21},\hat{q}_2,q_{23})\cr

768: ~~~q_3=Q_3/2~\to&~~(\hat{q}_3,q_{31},q_{32},\hat{q}_3)}

769: \auto\label{np3}

770: $$}

771: Momentum conservation gives 

772: a total of five independent $q$ variables which, along  

773: with $p_1, p_2$ and $p_3$, give the necessary eight variables. The definition

774: of the triple-regge limit in terms of angular variables is 

775: given in \cite{arw01}. For our present purposes the above definition in 

776: terms of momenta will be sufficient. This will alow us to avoid the

777: extra complication of defining helicity angles, helicity-pole limits

778: etc. The asymptotic behavior involved must hold 

779: for all complex values of the large momenta,

780: including the additional physical regions reached by reversing the 

781: signs of the $p_i$.

782: 

783: In \cite{arw01} we also studied feynman diagrams that contain a 

784: closed quark loop and generate

785: triple-regge reggeized gluon interactions containing the loop.

786: To set the context for the present paper we briefly review the results.

787: We considered the lowest-order amplitudes in which 

788: the anomaly could 

789: potentially appear and, in particular, studied ``maximally non-planar'' 

790: diagrams of the kind shown in Fig.~3.1(a). 

791: \begin{center}

792: \leavevmode

793: \epsfxsize=4.5in

794: \epsffile{chir9.ps}

795: 

796: Fig.~3.1 A maximally non-planar diagram and 

797: the triangle diagram reggeon interaction produced.   

798: \end{center}

799: (Throughout this paper we adopt the usual convention that solid and wavy lines 

800: respectively represent a quark and a gluon.

801: We have reversed the direction of $P_3$ relative 

802: to the notation of \cite{arw01} in order to have a completely symmetric

803: notation.) The leading asymptotic contributions come from 

804: regions of gluon loop integrations where some of the 

805: propagators in the quark loop and the scattering quark systems

806: are on-shell. We discuss the determination of which propagators can be

807: on-shell below. For the moment we consider the possibility, discussed at 

808: length in \cite{arw01}, that the 

809: on-shell lines are those that are hatched in Fig.~3.1(a). We will eventually 

810: conclude that this combination of on-shell propagators can not produce a 

811: reggeon interaction with a physical region anomaly divergence, 

812: even though it does produce a triangle

813: diagram interaction. As we will see, the crucial issue is not just which 

814: propagators are placed on-shell but also which pole (``particle'' or 

815: ``antiparticle'') is involved. (As the discussion in the previous 

816: Section suggested,

817: for the unphysical discontinuities, with which we will ultimately 

818: be concerned, the answer to this question is not unambiguous.)

819: In the following we initially 

820: ignore this subtlety. As it emerges in 

821: our discussion it will become clear that it is a vital part 

822: of the search for further diagrams which do produce an interaction 

823: containing the anomaly.

824: 

825: If the hatched on-shell propagators are used to carry out

826: light-like longitudinal momentum integrations the integrals over gluon loop

827: momenta reduce to two-dimensional ``transverse'' integrals over

828: spacelike momenta, as illustrated by Fig.~3.1(b). The transverse 

829: plane (and orthogonal light-like momenta)

830: can, in general, be chosen differently in each $t$-channel. 

831: If $Q_{i\perp}$ is the projection of $Q_i$ on the corresponding 

832: transverse plane, the leading asymptotic contribution then has the form

833: $$

834: \eqalign{ ~~~~~P_{1^+}~ P_{2^+}~ P_{3^+}~

835: \prod_{i=1}^3 \int & { d^2 k_{i1}d^2 k_{i2}\over  k_{ i1}^2  k_{i2}^2}  

836: ~~ \delta^2 (Q_{i\perp} -  k_{i1} -  k_{i2})~G^2_i(k_{i1},k_{i2},\cdots)

837: \cr &~~~~~~~~\times ~ R^6(Q_1,Q_2,Q_3,

838: k_{11}, k_{12}, \cdots )} \auto \label{211}

839: $$

840: where $ R^6(Q_1,Q_2,Q_3,k_{11}, k_{12}, \cdots )$  

841: can be identified with the ``reduced'',

842: or ``contracted'', feynman diagram of Fig.~3.1(c). If we write

843: $$

844: k_{i1} ~= ~q_i + k_i~, ~~~~ k_{i2} ~= ~q_i - k_i~,

845: \auto\label{dki}

846: $$

847: then we showed in \cite{arw01}

848: that (with a particular choice of transverse planes)

849: $$

850: \eqalign{ &R^6(q_1,q_2,q_3,k_1,k_2,k_3) ~=\cr

851: & \int d^4 k  {  Tr \{ 

852: \gamma_5 \gamma^{-,-,+} (\st{k}+ \st{k}_1 + \st{q}_2 +\st{k}_3) 

853: \gamma_5 \gamma^{-,-,-} ~\st{k}~ 

854: \gamma_5 \gamma^{-,-,-}(\st{k}- \st{k}_2 + \st{q}_1 + \st{k}_3 ) \}

855: \over  (k + k_1 + q_2 + k_3 )^2  

856: ~k^2 ~

857:  (k - k_2 + q_1 + k_3)^2 }  ~+ ~ \cdots }

858: \auto\label{580}

859: $$

860: where

861: $$

862: \gamma^{\pm,\pm,\pm} ~=~ \gamma^{\mu}\cdot n^{\pm,\pm,\pm}_{ \mu} ~,~~~~

863: n^{\pm,\pm,\pm}_{\mu} ~= ~ (1,\pm1,\pm1,\pm1)

864: \auto\label{g64}

865: $$

866: The contributions to $R^6$ not shown explicitly in (\ref{580}) do not have

867: a $\gamma_5$ at all three vertices of the triangle diagram. 

868: As we will discuss again in Section 5, the particular

869: $\gamma$-matrix projections appearing depend on the choice of transverse

870: co-ordinates. If the anomaly is present in $R^6$, however, we expect it to be

871: independent of this choice. We should

872: emphasize that while we have written (\ref{580}) as a function of

873: four-dimensional momenta, the $k_i$ are restricted to be 

874: two-dimensional spacelike momenta (plus longitudinal components

875: determined by the mass-shell conditions for the on-shell quarks) and 

876: the $q_i$ have the restricted form given by (\ref{np3}). These restrictions 

877: play a crucial role in determining whether the anomaly can occur in a physical

878: region reggeon interaction.

879: 

880: \subhead{3.2 A Reggeon Diagram Amplitude}

881:  

882: For completeness, we give a brief description (full details can be found in

883: \cite{arw01}) of how a reggeon vertex is extracted from (\ref{211}).

884: A reggeon diagram amplitude 

885: that represents right-hand cuts in the unphysical triplet 

886: $\{s_{13'}, s_{32'}, s_{21'}\}$ and has two reggeons in each $t$-channel, 

887: each with trajectory $\alpha(t) = 1 +~O(g^2)$, has the form\cite{arw01}

888: $$

889: \eqalign{ &~~\prod_i\int { d^2k_i \over 

890: sin \pi \alpha (k_i^2)  sin \pi \alpha ((Q_i -k_i)^2)  } 

891: ~~~~\beta(k_1,k_2,k_3,Q_1,Q_2,Q_3)\cr 

892: &\biggl[ ~(s_{13'})^{[\alpha (k_1^2)+\alpha ((Q_1 -k_1)^2) + 

893: \alpha (k_3^2)+\alpha ((Q_3 -k_3)^2) -

894: \alpha (k_2^2)-\alpha ((Q_2 -k_2)^2) -1]/2} \cr

895: & ~~~~~~~~ (s_{32'})^{[\alpha (k_3^2)+\alpha ((Q_3 -k_3)^2) + 

896: \alpha (k_2^2)+\alpha ((Q_2 -k_2)^2) -

897: \alpha (k_1^2)-\alpha ((Q_1 -k_1)^2) -1]/2} \cr

898: & ~~~~~~~~~~~~(s_{21'})^{[\alpha (k_1^2)+\alpha ((Q_1 -k_1)^2) + 

899: \alpha (k_2^2)+\alpha ((Q_2 -k_2)^2) -

900: \alpha (k_3^2)-\alpha ((Q_3 -k_3)^2) -1]/2} \biggr]~  \cr

901: &~~~~\biggl[[sin {\pi \over 2} [\hbox{${\scriptstyle\alpha (k_1^2)

902: +\alpha ((Q_1 -k_1)^2) + 

903: \alpha (k_3^2)+\alpha ((Q_3 -k_3)^2) -

904: \alpha (k_2^2)-\alpha ((Q_2 -k_2)^2)}$}] \cr

905: &~~~~~~~~~~ sin {\pi \over 2} [\hbox{${\scriptstyle \alpha (k_3^2)

906: +\alpha ((Q_3 -k_3)^2) + 

907: \alpha (k_2^2)+\alpha ((Q_2 -k_2)^2) -

908: \alpha (k_1^2)-\alpha ((Q_1 -k_1)^2)}$} ] \cr

909: & ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~sin {\pi \over 2} [\hbox{${\scriptstyle \alpha (k_1^2)

910: +\alpha ((Q_1 -k_1)^2) + 

911: \alpha (k_2^2)+\alpha ((Q_2 -k_2)^2) -

912: \alpha (k_3^2)-\alpha ((Q_3 -k_3)^2)}$} ] \biggr]^{-1}}

913:  \auto \label {2ra1}

914: $$

915: $$

916: \centerunder{$\sim$}{\raisebox{-6mm}{$ g^2 \to 0$}}~

917: (s_{13'})^{1/2}(s_{32'})^{1/2}(s_{21'})^{1/2}

918: ~\prod_i\int{ d^2k_i \over 

919: k_i^2  (Q_i -k_i)^2  }

920: ~~\beta_(k_1,k_2,k_3,Q_1,Q_2,Q_3) ~~

921: \auto\label{2ra}

922: $$

923: (The generalization of this formula to include more reggeons in any of

924: the channels should be obvious.)

925: Taking the triple discontinuity in $s_{13'}$, $s_{32'}$

926: and $s_{23'}$ of (\ref{2ra1})

927: removes the poles due to the sine factors in the second

928: square bracket, but leaves the $g^2 \to 0$ limit unchanged. Since   

929: the triple discontinuity is unphysical and

930: of the kind discussed in the previous Section,

931: according to the discussion in

932: \cite{arw01}, the ``six-reggeon interaction vertex''

933: $\beta_(k_1,k_2,k_3,Q_1,Q_2,Q_3)$ could contain the anomaly.

934: 

935: Writing

936: $$

937: P_{1^+} P_{2^+} P_{3^+}~\equiv ~(s_{13'})^{1/2}(s_{32'})^{1/2}(s_{21'})^{1/2}

938: \auto\label{p+inv}

939: $$

940: and comparing with (\ref{2ra}) we see that it would be straightforward

941: to identify (\ref{211}) as a lowest-order contribution to such a

942: reggeon diagram amplitude if the reduced feynman

943: diagram amplitude of Fig.~3.1(c) is identified as a reggeon vertex, i.e.

944: $$

945: R^6(Q_1,Q_2,Q_3, k_{1},Q_1- k_{1},\cdots)~\equiv ~

946: \beta(k_1,k_2,k_3,Q_1,Q_2,Q_3)

947: \auto\label{6rv}

948: $$

949: Note, however, that while the right-side of (\ref{p+inv})

950: clearly has a triple discontinuity in $\{s_{13'}, s_{32'}, s_{21'}\}$,

951: the left-side does not. The equivalence of the two sides is only determined

952: if higher-order terms in (\ref{2ra1}) appear and add to (\ref{211}) in 

953: the appropriate manner. Such terms are contributed by what we refer to 

954: in the following as reggeization diagrams. Note, also, that for parts of $R^6$ 

955: (not including $\gamma_5$ couplings) higher-order terms would be expected to  

956: appear implying that, one or more of,  the transverse integrals in (\ref{211})

957: should be interpreted as arising from the trajectory function terms in

958: (\ref{2ra1}). Such parts of $R^6$ would then be interpreted as providing

959: interaction vertices for fewer reggeons. 

960: 

961: The amplitude (\ref{580}) representing Fig.~3.1(c) 

962: is the full four-dimensional

963: triangle diagram amplitude except that special $\gamma$-matrices

964: appear at the vertices and

965: only combinations of (essentially) two-dimensional transverse  

966: momenta flow through the diagram.  

967: It is shown in \cite{arw01} that the $\gamma$-matrix

968: couplings are appropriate to produce the anomaly but, as we discuss next, 

969: whether the necessary 

970: momentum configuration can occur within a physical region 

971: and provide a physical region infra-red divergence is a non-trivial

972: and subtle question that depends crucially on the choice of propagator

973: poles used to put lines on-shell.

974: 

975: \subhead{3.3 The Basic Anomaly Process}

976: 

977: As we discuss further in Section 5, the divergence of 

978: the (massless) triangle diagram occurs\cite{arw02} 

979: when a single light-like momentum flows through the diagram and

980: all other momenta are spacelike and scaled to zero.

981: Such a momentum configuration for the reggeon interaction $R$ is 

982: realized by that of the 

983: full feynman diagram shown in Fig.~3.2(a).

984: If we label the momenta entering the reggeon interaction as in Fig.~3.2(b)

985: an explicit configuration for Fig.~3.2(a), discussed in \cite{arw01}, is

986: $$

987: q_1-k_1~=~(2l,2l,0,0)~, ~~~

988: q_2-k_2~=~(-2l,0,-2l,0)

989: \auto\label{chm1}

990: $$ 

991: together with

992: $$

993: \hat{q}_1=- \hat{q}_2 =l ~~~~q_{13}=-q_{23} ~~~~ q_{12}=q_{21}=0

994: \auto\label{chm2}

995: $$

996: This determines $k_1$ and $k_2$ and also gives

997: $$

998: q_3~=~- (q_1+q_2)~= ~(0,-l,l,0)

999: \auto\label{chm3}

1000: $$

1001: If we then take

1002: $$

1003: k_3~=~l(0, 1 -2~ \cos{\theta}~, 1 - 2~\sin{\theta}~, 0) 

1004: \auto\label{chm4}

1005: $$

1006: the light-cone momentum 

1007: $$

1008: -~2l(1, \cos{\theta},\sin{\theta}, 0)

1009: \auto\label{chm30}

1010: $$

1011: flows along the two vertical non-hatched lines in Fig.~3.2(b). 

1012: It is straightforward

1013: to check that all three of the hatched lines are on mass-shell.

1014: \newline \parbox{4.3in}{

1015: \begin{center}

1016: \epsfxsize=4.1in

1017: \epsffile{chir6.ps}

1018: \newline (a)

1019: \end{center}}

1020: \parbox{1.7in}{

1021: \begin{center}

1022: \leavevmode

1023: \epsfxsize=1.5in

1024: \epsffile{chir60.ps}

1025: \newline (b)

1026: \end{center}}

1027: \begin{center}

1028: Fig.~3.2 The basic anomaly process.

1029: \end{center}

1030: If spacelike momenta of $O(q)$ are added to the momentum 

1031: configuration (\ref{chm1})-(\ref{chm30}) and the limit $q \to 0$ is taken,

1032: the anomaly divergence occurs. (We will discuss this

1033: in more detail in Section 5.)

1034: 

1035: Apart from the reversal of direction for $P_3$,  the process represented by 

1036: Fig.~3.2(a) 

1037: is what we called ``the basic anomaly process'' in \cite{arw01}.

1038: The zero momentum quark is produced by one ``wee

1039: gluon'' and absorbed by the other, allowing the chirality

1040: transition produced by the anomaly

1041: to compensate for a spin flip of the antiquark.  

1042: Note, however, that when the wee gluons are massless,

1043: the scattering processs represented by Fig.~3.2 is physical only when the 

1044: quark and antiquark involved are also massless. In addition, as we 

1045: noted in the Introduction (and discussed in more detail in \cite{arw02}, 

1046: the anomaly infra-red divergence involves both poles of 

1047: the zero momentum quark propagator. Moreover,

1048: the vertices coupling to the propagator 

1049: should, a priori, be symmetrically interpreted

1050: as describing either the simultaneous production of the two states 

1051: in the propagator or their simultaneous 

1052: absorption. When, as is the case in \cite{arw02}, 

1053: the infra-red divergence analysis  

1054: used to define physical states and amplitudes 

1055: requires that the massless scattering enter the physical region

1056: with the time ordering implied by Fig.~3.2,

1057: the presence of a non-perturbative background gauge field is effectively

1058: implied. The background field would be needed to

1059: produce the necessary spectral flow at one vertex 

1060: that is required to interpret the process as a chirality transition. 

1061:  

1062: While the required mass-shell

1063: conditions are indeed satisfied by (\ref{chm1})-(\ref{chm30}), 

1064: there is a problem.

1065: With the momenta given by  (\ref{chm1})-(\ref{chm30}),

1066: the energy component of each of the three hatched lines in Fig.~3.2(b)

1067: has the same sign.

1068: Since the exchanged gluons carry only spacelike momenta, it is clear that 

1069: this must be the case. We will see that this is a very difficult

1070: configuration to obtain within a reggeon interaction. We can emphasize

1071: the problem by 

1072: letting $l \to 0$ while simultaneously making a boost $a_z(\zeta)$

1073: such that $ l \cosh\zeta =n$ is kept finite. 

1074: (This is what is done in \cite{arw02}.)

1075: If we then take all transverse momenta to zero, we obtain 

1076: $$

1077: q_1-k_1~\to ~(2n,0,0,2n)~, ~~~

1078: q_2-k_2~\to~(-2n,0,0,-2n)

1079: \auto\label{chm101}

1080: $$ 

1081: and all the on-shell propagators carry the same light-like momentum

1082: (with respect to the direction of the loop momentum). 

1083: Effectively, then, the on-shell states in the loop must be in a 

1084: symmetric  light-like situation. 

1085: (This implies that if the zero momentum state is an antiquark (quark), 

1086: all hatched lines must be quarks (antiquarks).)

1087: 

1088: As we already remarked on in the Introduction, and as is discussed at length 

1089: in \cite{arw01}, the only practicable calculational method

1090: to determine whether

1091: a given combination of on-shell lines contributes to the triple-regge behavior

1092: (after all diagrams are added) is the dispersion relation method that 

1093: we outline very briefly below. In this 

1094: approach all on-shell lines 

1095: in a reggeon interaction result directly from the taking of a 

1096: triple asymptotic 

1097: discontinuity. ``Real part'' interactions with the 

1098: same on-shell lines may be

1099: generated when the full dispersion relation is written

1100: or, equivalently, multi-regge theory is used\cite{arw01} 

1101: to convert the triple discontinuity to a full amplitude. 

1102: 

1103: To have all on-shell lines carry the same

1104: light-like momentum (around a loop) in a 

1105: multiple discontinuity is a very restrictive requirement. 

1106: The essential point becomes clear if we consider a physical

1107: region double discontinuity which gives the cut lines of Fig.~3.1(a),

1108: as in Fig.~3.3(a).

1109: \begin{center}

1110: \epsfxsize=4.5in

1111: \epsffile{chtr11.ps}

1112: 

1113: Fig.~3.3 (a) A physical threshold double discontinuity (b) 

1114: A pseudothreshold double discontinuity.

1115: \end{center}

1116: If all cut lines carry light-like

1117: momenta, the positive direction for the energy component

1118: must be as indicated by the arrows in Fig.~3.3(a). Obviously  

1119: the direction can not be the same, relative to the internal

1120: loop momentum, for all cut lines. Nevertheless, this is an essential

1121: requirement if a reggeon interaction is 

1122: to contain a physical region divergence

1123: produced by the anomaly (i.e. some variant of the ``basic anomaly process''

1124: must be involved). We obtain what we require if we reverse one internal 

1125: line and one external line 

1126: (to make the cutting completely symmetric) as in Fig.~3.3(b). 

1127: Since both cuts now involve both forward and backward going (in time)

1128: particles it is clear that we must have a combination of pseudothresholds,

1129: just as suggested in the previous Section, that can occur only in an 

1130: unphysical region of momentum space.

1131: 

1132: We already recognized in \cite{arw01} that 

1133: the necessary triple discontinuity is not present in the diagram of Fig.~3.1

1134: but we suggested that nevertheless it may be present in related 

1135: higher-order reggeization

1136: diagrams that produce the reggeization of the gluons. In which

1137: case, the basic anomaly 

1138: process of Fig.~3.2 would be required as a real part interaction.

1139: In fact, we will show in the remaining part of

1140: this paper that this is not the case. Instead, the requirement that all 

1141: cut lines are treated symmetrically will require more

1142: wee gluons and ultimately will require that reggeon

1143: interactions with the quantum numbers of the winding number current must

1144: be involved. Also, as we already anticipated in the previous Section

1145: the discontinuities involved must be unphysical.

1146:  

1147: As we discussed in \cite{arw01},

1148: we do not expect the anomaly divergence to be present in the scattering of

1149: elementary quarks and/or gluons after all diagrams are summed. Rather,

1150: we expect it to be present when  

1151: the basic process is generalized to describe the scattering of 

1152: the particular multi-regge states that ultimately form

1153: bound states, and then only in color superconducting QCD. 

1154: In \cite{arw02} it is clear that the relevant bound-states are just the

1155: Goldstone bosons produced by chiral symmetry breaking. 

1156: The corresponding $G_i$ will then appear in 

1157: a generalization of (\ref{211}) and the 

1158: wee gluons involved will be a crucial characteristic of  

1159: scattering states. Also the chirality transitions produced (and the implicit 

1160: spectral flow) will be an essential part of scattering processes.

1161: 

1162: \subhead{3.4 The Triple-Regge Dispersion Relation}

1163: 

1164: In general, an asymptotic dispersion relation\cite{arw00} gives the leading 

1165: multi-regge behavior of an amplitude as

1166: a sum over multiple discontinuity contributions 

1167: allowed by the Steinmann relations. For the particular case (described in

1168: detail in \cite{arw01}) of 

1169: the triple-regge 

1170: behavior of a six-point amplitude we can write 

1171: $$

1172: M_6(P_1,P_2,P_3,Q_1,Q_2,Q_3)~ =~ 

1173: \sum_{\cal C} M_6^{\cal C}(P_1,P_2,P_3,Q_1,Q_2,Q_3)

1174: ~+~M_6^0~,\auto\label{dis}

1175: $$

1176: where $M_6^0$ contains all non-leading 

1177: triple-regge behavior, double-regge behavior, etc. and the sum is

1178: over all triplets ${\cal C}$ of 

1179: asymptotic 

1180: cuts in non-overlapping (large) invariants. For each triplet ${\cal C}$, 

1181: say ${\cal C}= (s_1,s_2,s_3)$, we can write 

1182: $$  

1183: \eqalign{M_6^{\cal C}(P_1,P_2,P_3,Q_1,Q_2,Q_3)~=~{1\over (2\pi i)^{3}}  &~~\int

1184: ds'_1 ds'_2 ds'_{3} ~~{\Delta^{\cal C} \over

1185: (s'_1-s_1)(s'_2-s_2)(s'_{3}-s_{3})} }

1186: \auto\label{dis2}

1187: $$

1188: where $\Delta^{\cal C}$ is the triple discontinuity.

1189: 

1190: The triple discontinuities are of three

1191: kinds, described by the tree diagrams of Fig.~3.4. 

1192: There are 24 corresponding to Fig.~3.4(a),

1193: 12 to Fig.~3.4(b), 

1194: and 12 of the  Fig.~3.4(c) kind - including those described by Fig.~2.3. 

1195: Those of Fig.~3.4(a) and (b), occur in the physical

1196: regions, while those corresponding to Fig.~3.4(c) are all unphysical 

1197: triple discontinuities of the kind discussed in the last Section.

1198: \begin{center}

1199: \leavevmode

1200: \epsfxsize=2.2in

1201: \epsffile{3trd.ps}

1202: 

1203: Fig.~3.4 Tree Diagrams for triple discontinuities.

1204: \end{center}

1205: 

1206: \subhead{3.5 Unphysical Triple Discontinuities and Reggeization}

1207:  

1208: As we discussed in \cite{arw01}, the diagram of Fig.~3.1(a) has physical region

1209: triple discontinuities of both the Fig.~3.4(a) and (b) kinds, although 

1210: neither gives leading triple-regge behavior. Unphysical discontinuities

1211: are more complicated to discuss. If the usual cutting rules hold,

1212: the diagram of Fig.~3.1(a) has no asymptotic triple 

1213: discontinuities corresponding to Fig.~3.4(c), but rather has

1214: only double discontinuities. To see this, 

1215: consider cutting the diagram as in Fig.~3.5, superficially giving an

1216: $\{s_{13'}, s_{32'}, s_{21'} \}$  triple discontinuity.

1217: \begin{center}

1218: \epsfxsize=2in

1219: \epsffile{chtr1.ps}

1220: 

1221: Fig.~3.5 An unphysical triple discontinuity?

1222: \end{center}

1223: In fact, just taking a double discontinuity, as in Fig.~3.3, 

1224: cuts all the available lines, implying 

1225: that there is no independent third discontinuity that can be taken.

1226: 

1227: It is not clear, a-priori, 

1228: that the cutting rules do apply to unphysical discontinuities. However, we will

1229: show directly in the next Section that, indeed, there is no symmetric

1230: triple discontinuity present giving the desired common energy 

1231: component sign in the diagram of Fig.~3.1. 

1232: Therefore, as we described above, whether there is an anomaly contribution

1233: from diagrams of this kind depends on whether the necessary triple

1234: discontinuities are present when  

1235: reggeization effects appear.

1236: In \cite{arw01} we noted only that such discontinuities 

1237: appeared to be present in reggeization diagrams 

1238: but did not discuss the structure of such diagrams in any detail. 

1239: 

1240: As an example of a diagram that should produce reggeization, 

1241: consider that shown in Fig.~3.6  

1242: \begin{center}

1243: \epsfxsize=4.5in

1244: \epsffile{chtr2.ps}

1245: 

1246: Fig.~3.6 A diagram with an unphysical triple discontinuity.

1247: \end{center} 

1248: in which one of the gluons in the diagram of Fig.~3.5 is replaced by 

1249: two-gluon exchange - potentially  

1250: giving the one-loop contribution to the trajectory

1251: function of the original gluon. The thin lines again indicate how an

1252: unphysical $\{s_{13'}, s_{32'}, s_{21'} \}$ discontinuity would be taken.

1253: The corresponding six reggeon interaction, together with a remnant 

1254: seven reggeon interaction, would be generated by putting the cut

1255: lines on-shell. The discontinuity is clearly not symmetric and

1256: in the next Section we will confirm by direct calculation that there 

1257: is no triple discontinuity giving the anomaly. This will

1258: be sufficient to determine that the anomaly process of Fig.~3.2 is not 

1259: generated as a ``real part interaction'' when higher-order 

1260: reggeization effects are included. 

1261: 

1262: \subhead{3.6 A Symmetric Triple Discontinuity}

1263: 

1264: To obtain a symmetric triple discontinuity 

1265: in which the normal cutting rules could potentially give the anomaly amplitude 

1266: associated with  Fig.~3.2 , we consider the

1267: high-order diagram shown in Fig.~3.7(a)

1268: in which there are three gluons in each

1269: $t$-channel. A triple discontinuity in $\{s_{1'2}, s_{2'3}, s_{3'1} \}$ 

1270: is obtained by cutting the diagram as indicated in Fig.~3.7(b). 

1271: The closed loops involving two-gluon exchange could give

1272: both one loop contributions to the one reggeon trajectory

1273: function and the leading contribution of a two reggeon state. A-priori,

1274: therefore, we expect the diagram to contribute to the six-, seven-,

1275: eight- and nine-reggeon interaction as illustrated.

1276: \newline \parbox{1.7in}{

1277: \begin{center}

1278: $~$

1279: %\newline $~$

1280: \newline $~$

1281: \newline $~$

1282: \newline \epsfxsize=1.3in

1283: \epsffile{chir1.ps}

1284: \newline $~$

1285: \newline $~$

1286: \newline(a)

1287: \end{center}}

1288: \parbox{4.3in}{

1289: \begin{center}

1290: \epsfxsize=3.8in

1291: \epsffile{chtr.ps}

1292: \newline $~$

1293: \newline(b)

1294: \end{center}}

1295: \begin{center}

1296: Fig.~3.7 (a) A diagram with a symmetric 

1297: unphysical triple discontinuity

1298: \newline (b) expected reggeon interactions.

1299: \end{center}

1300: 

1301: Since the triple discontinuity of Fig.~3.7(b)

1302: is manifestly symmetric we again might 

1303: expect the symmetric configuration giving the anomaly 

1304: to appear in the six-reggeon interaction. 

1305: However, for consistency with our previous discussion,

1306: the anomaly should not (and does not) appear quite so simply.

1307: After we carry out the explicit 

1308: evaluation of asymptotic discontinuities in the next Section,  

1309: it will be clear that the triple discontinuity of Fig.~3.7(b) does not 

1310: contain the required symmetric momentum configuration.

1311: In fact, the anomaly does occur within 

1312: a reggeon interaction generated by the diagram of Fig.~3.7(a), but  

1313: only when the unphysical discontinuities are actually taken 

1314: as shown in Fig.~3.8. 

1315: \begin{center}

1316: \epsfxsize=3.2in

1317: \epsffile{chir111.ps}

1318: 

1319: Fig.~3.8 Another cutting of Fig.~3.7(a).

1320: \end{center} 

1321: However, 

1322: we will postpone until  Section 5 a discussion of which

1323: reggeon interaction is involved.

1324: Note that the discontinuity lines in Fig.~3.8 cross each other. We will

1325: see that this is 

1326: possible because, as anticipated in the previous Section, 

1327: the particles contributing to each discontinuity will not

1328: all have the same time direction. 

1329: To evaluate a multiple discontinuity of this kind

1330: we must develop direct methods to compute asymptotic discontinuities.

1331: 

1332: \newpage

1333: 

1334: \mainhead{4. UNPHYSICAL TRIPLE DISCONTINUITIES AND HIGHER-ORDER GRAPHS}

1335: 

1336: In this Section we generalize the single asymptotic

1337: discontinuity analysis described in the Appendix to asymptotic 

1338: triple discontinuities. The essential idea is that there is a well-defined 

1339: leading-log result for each triple discontinuity (just as there is for

1340: the single discontinuity calculated in the Appendix) that can be found

1341: from the leading-log calculation of amplitudes by keeping the $i \epsilon$

1342: dependence of all logarithms. 

1343: 

1344: \subhead{4.1 A Physical Region Discontinuity}

1345: 

1346: We begin by considering again the maximally non-planar graph

1347: shown in Fig.~3.1. To understand 

1348: how asymptotic discontinuities arise, we first consider

1349: a physical region discontinuity. For this we interchange 

1350: $P_1$ and $P_{1'}$ in (\ref{np3}) so that $P_{1'}$ and $P_{2}$ are the

1351: momenta of incoming particles. For simplicity, we also set 

1352: $Q_i=0,~ i=1,2,3$. This could cause confusion as to which invariants

1353: discontinuities actually occur in. However, for the discontinuities

1354: that interest us, we will be able to

1355: avoid this issue. (As is the case for our

1356: discussion in the Appendix, adding both transverse 

1357: momenta and masses to our discussion would not change the essential features 

1358: of the analysis, but would eliminate gluon 

1359: infra-red divergences. We will discuss,

1360: at some points, the general effect of adding transverse momenta.)

1361: Therefore we write, asymptotically,  

1362: $$

1363: \eqalign{ P_{1'}~\to &~- P_{1}~= ~(p_{1'},p_{1'},0,0)~,~~p_{1'} \to \infty \cr

1364: P_2~\to &~- P_{2'}~= ~(p_2,0,p_2,0)~,~~p_2 \to \infty \cr

1365: P_3~\to &~ -P_{3'}~= ~(p_3,0,0,p_3)~,~~p_3 \to \infty  }

1366: \auto\label{pas}

1367: $$

1368: 

1369: For the reasons given in the last Section,

1370: we will ultimately be looking for a symmetric triple discontinuity.

1371: Therefore, we consider only routes for the 

1372: internal loop momenta of Fig.~3.1 that are completely symmetric with 

1373: respect to the three external loops. There is essentially only one possibility.

1374: The two apparently distinct possibilities   

1375: illustrated in Fig.~4.1 are related by interchanging the primed and 

1376: unprimed external momenta.

1377: We will also want to make a symmetric choice for 

1378: the quark lines we place on shell. Although we will not discuss the anomaly 

1379: in detail until the next Section, in anticipation of this we will demand 

1380: that a product of three orthogonal $\gamma$-matrices

1381: be associated with the process of putting on-shell 

1382: each internal quark line.

1383: To achieve this it is necessary to put on-shell, symmetrically,  

1384: the internal lines in Fig.~4.1(a) 

1385: along which a single loop momentum flows. Therefore, we 

1386: consider only such lines in the following.

1387: \newline \parbox{3in}{ 

1388: \begin{center}

1389: \epsfxsize=2.2in

1390: \epsffile{chir33.ps}

1391: \newline (a)

1392: \end{center}}

1393: \parbox{3in}{ 

1394: \begin{center}

1395: \epsfxsize=2.2in

1396: \epsffile{chir44.ps}

1397: \newline (b)

1398: \end{center}}

1399: \newline \centerline{Fig.~4.1 Routing Loop Momenta for Fig.~3.2.}

1400: 

1401: Using the momentum routing of Fig.~4.1(a)

1402: and the analysis of the Appendix

1403: we consider logarithms generated by the $k_1$ and $k_2$ 

1404: integrations.

1405: The $k_1$ and $k_2$ loops are shown in Fig.~4.2.

1406: \begin{center}

1407: \epsfxsize=4in

1408: \epsffile{chir520.ps}

1409: 

1410: Fig.~4.2 (a) The $k_1$ Loop (b) The $k_2$ Loop.

1411: \end{center}

1412: For the moment, we omit the propagators in the sloping lines

1413: and all propagator numerators. (The omitted propagators will, nevertheless,

1414: play an important role below. They are also

1415: relevant if we wish to consider the other kinds of discontinuities

1416: that appear in Fig.~3.4.)

1417: In this case, the two loops differ only in the light-cone direction of

1418: $P_1'$ and $P_2$.

1419: 

1420: We consider Fig.~4.2(a) first. We 

1421: can directly apply the discussion following (\ref{lcan4})

1422: if we identify $P_{1'}$ with $p$, 

1423: $q$ with $p'$, 

1424: $k_1$ with $k$, and consider the propagator pole at 

1425: $(k_1+q)^2 = 0$. We then obtain 

1426: $$

1427: \eqalign{ I(p_{1'}q_{1^-})~\sim~&i\int 

1428: d^2\underline{k}_{1\perp} \left[ -k^2_{1\perp} + 

1429: i\epsilon \right]^{-2} ~\int_0^{\lambda q_{1^-}} dk_{1^-}  

1430: \left[k_{1^-} -q_{1^-} \right]^{-1}\left[ p_{1'} k_{1^-}

1431: - \underline{k}^2_{1\perp}

1432: +i\epsilon \right]^{-1} \cr 

1433:  \sim~&

1434: {1 \over p_{1'}q_{1^-}}~\log{[p_{1'}\lambda q_{1^-} + i\epsilon]} } 

1435: \auto\label{l50}

1436: $$

1437: We have used the notation (used extensively in the following) that for any

1438: four-momentum $k$

1439: $$

1440: k_{i^{\pm}}~=~k_0 \pm k_i ~~~~~

1441: \underline{k}_{i\perp}~=~(k_j,k_k)~~j\neq k \neq i

1442: ~~~~~ ~~i,j,k~ = 1,2,3 

1443: \auto\label{not-}

1444: $$

1445: The $q_{1^-}$ 

1446: dependence indicates that the logarithm is a reflection of a threshold

1447: in the invariant $P_{1'}\cdot q$ . This dependence plays an important 

1448: role in the following discussion. We also retain the $\lambda$-dependence, 

1449: for technical reasons that will become apparent later. The final

1450: result will be independent of $\lambda$, as it must be. 

1451: From Fig.~4.2(b) we analagously obtain

1452: $$

1453: I(p_2q_{2^-})~\sim~~

1454: {1 \over p_{2}q_{2^-}}~\log{[- p_{2}\lambda q_{2^-} + i\epsilon]}

1455: \auto\label{l51}

1456: $$

1457: The minus sign (which is very important in the following)

1458: appears relative to (\ref{l50}) because of the 

1459: opposite direction of $P_2$.

1460: 

1461: Next we consider how the logarithmic branch cuts

1462: generated by the  $k_1$ and $k_2$ integrations can trap the internal loop

1463: integration over $q$ to produce an overall

1464: discontinuity in $s_{1'2} \sim p_{1'}p_{2}$. 

1465: For simplicity, we consider the region where

1466: $$

1467: \underline{k}_{i \perp}^2 ~\sim~ q^2~~\sim ~ 0 ~~~~~i~=~1,2,3

1468: \auto\label{5an0}

1469: $$

1470: Appealing to (\ref{5an}) we can then, for our present purposes, effectively 

1471: ignore the remaining 

1472: $k_i$ dependence of the quark loop (including the propagators that

1473: we ignored in the above discussion). If we parameterize $q$ as 

1474: $$

1475: q~=~\biggl(q_0,~q_{1^-},~q_{2^-},~q_{3^-} \biggr)

1476: \auto\label{l52}

1477: $$

1478: we can treat the $q_{i^-}$ as independent variables, 

1479: with $q_0$ essentially determined by the constraint $q^2 \sim 0$.

1480: The logarithmic cuts of (\ref{l50}) and (\ref{l51}) appear, respectively,

1481: in the $q_{1^-}$ and $q_{2^-}$ planes and if we make a further change of 

1482: variables to

1483: $$

1484: q_{1^-}~=~x_2x_3~~, ~~~~q_{2^-}~=~x_3x_1 ~ ~, ~~~~~q_{3^-}~=~x_1x_2

1485: \auto\label{l53}

1486: $$

1487: the two branch points appear in the $x_3$-plane, for fixed, positive, 

1488: $x_1,x_2$, 

1489: as illustrated in Fig.~4.3(a).

1490: \begin{center}

1491: \epsfxsize=5.8in

1492: \epsffile{chir530.ps}

1493: \newline Fig.~4.3 Contours in the $x_3$-plane (a) the initial contour 

1494: (b) $p_{2} \to e^{2\pi i}p_{2}$ 

1495: \newline (c)  the discontinuity   

1496: (d) the discontinuity as a line integral. 

1497: \end{center} 

1498: (The branch points also appear, separately, 

1499: in the $x_2$ and $x_1$ planes. To focus on the

1500: $s_{1'2}$ discontinuity and avoid any complication

1501: from discontinuities involving a

1502: logarithm of $p_3$ in these planes 

1503: we can take the $\lambda$ for this logarithm to be much smaller.) 

1504: The propagator poles that are not on-shell, that we ignored in the 

1505: above discussion, combine to give a multiple pole at

1506: $q^2=0$ (on both sides of the contour, as determined by

1507: the presence of $i\epsilon$ in all propagators). 

1508: If we continue to ignore propagator

1509: numerators then the factors of $1/q_{1^-}$ and  $1/q_{2^-}$, 

1510: in (\ref{l50}) and (\ref{l51}) respectively, will also contribute poles at 

1511: $x_3=0$ (that will partly be compensated by the jacobian due to 

1512: the change of variables).

1513: However, in the anomaly contribution we will ultimately consider, these poles 

1514: will be directly canceled by numerator factors.

1515: 

1516: The threshold we are interested in occurs when the two branch points collide

1517: (at $x_3 = 0$ for $\epsilon = 0$). To extract the discontinuity we

1518: consider a full-plane rotation of $p_{2}$, with $p_{1'}$ fixed, so that  

1519: the logarithmic branch-cut

1520: (\ref{l51}) deforms the contour as shown in Fig.~4.3(b) 

1521: - the dashed line indicates that the contour is on the 

1522: second sheet of the branch-point (\ref{l50}). (In this figure 

1523: we have omitted the poles at $x_3=0$.) Note that 

1524: the continuation path we have chosen isolates the discontinuity

1525: around the $s_{1'2}$ branch cut, since it avoids the pinching of the 

1526: integration contour with the singularity at 

1527: $q^2=0$ that would give other discontinuities. 

1528: The desired discontinuity is obtained by adding 

1529: the original contour in the opposite direction, as shown in Fig.~4.3(c).

1530: Combining both contours 

1531: we obtain Fig.~4.3(d) which, as illustrated, can be written as a line integral 

1532: between the two branch 

1533: points of the double-discontinuity due to both cuts. As $\epsilon \to 0$, 

1534: or in the asymptotic

1535: limit $p_{1'}, p_2 \to \infty$, the branch points approach each other

1536: and the result is a closed contour integral around the 

1537: singularity at $q^2=0$ which is independent of the position of the end points 

1538: and remains finite in the asymptotic limit. This is the asymptotic 

1539: discontinuity and the singularity at $q^2 = 0$ 

1540: is clearly crucial in producing a non-zero result. 

1541: 

1542: In Fig.~4.4(a) we have illustrated the last stage of the contour contraction

1543: as $\epsilon \to 0$ and have also included 

1544: the effect of adding 

1545: (external and internal) transverse momenta in the 

1546: the foregoing analysis. 

1547: The integral between the branch points, of the double discontinuity,

1548: is still obtained, while the 

1549: singularity at $q^2 =0$ separates into a set of poles at both 

1550: positive and negative $x_3$.

1551: \begin{center}

1552: \epsfxsize=5in

1553: \epsffile{chir540.ps}

1554: 

1555: Fig.~4.4 (a) The $x_3$

1556: contour with finite transverse momenta (b) equivalence of the

1557: asymptotic contour to the original contour.  

1558: \end{center} 

1559: In Fig.~4.4(b) we have  shown the asymptotic discontinuity.

1560: Since the branch points are

1561: logarithmic, the double discontinuity involved is simply $4 \pi^2$ and so 

1562: no longer contains either branch cut.

1563: Consequently, the asymptotically finite integral around 

1564: the poles to the left can be opened up to give the original contour, 

1565: as illustrated. (If there is a singularity at $x_3=0$, the contour is 

1566: constrained to pass through this point although, as we noted above, for the

1567: anomaly contribution to graphs, this will not be the case). 

1568: The final result shown in Fig.~4.4(b) is just what

1569: would be given by the normal cutting rules for a discontinuity in $s_{1'2}$ ,

1570: i.e. the original integral with the four propagators involved in generating 

1571: the discontinuity placed on-shell. Note that the same result 

1572: is obtained if the discontinuity is evaluated by 

1573: varying $p_{1'}$. An integral around the positive $x_3$ poles appears at the

1574: intermediate stage, which can then 

1575: be opened up to give the same final contour as in Fig.~4.4(b).  

1576: 

1577: An obvious, but essential, requirement in the

1578: origin of the asymptotic discontinuity, which we want to emphasize, 

1579: is that the branch-cuts due to the logarithms

1580: in $p_{1'}$ and $p_2$ must lie on opposite sides of the $x_3$ contour.

1581: (This is the sign difference between (\ref{l50}) and (\ref{l51}) 

1582: that we emphasized above.) In a physical region this requirement 

1583: is normally straightforward for a loop integration producing a threshold

1584: due to two massive states since the loop momentum will flow oppositely

1585: through the two states and the $i\epsilon$ prescription will place

1586: the states on opposite sides of the energy integration contour. In the 

1587: variables we are using the generation of the threshold is a little more 

1588: subtle.

1589: Note, for example, that when $x_1 < 0$ the branch-point (\ref{l50}) appears 

1590: in the upper half-plane (moving through infinity as $x_1$ moves through zero)

1591: and there is no discontinuity. Therefore, the signs of the $x_{i}$ play an 

1592: essential role in the occurrence of the discontinuity. 

1593: A further requirement, which clearly holds in the case just discussed, 

1594: is that the trapping (pinching)

1595: of the contour that we have discussed 

1596: must combine with the pinching associated with the logarithms

1597: to give a complete cut through the diagram. That is to say, the complete set of

1598: pinchings must correspond to an overall invariant cut.

1599: 

1600: \subhead{4.2 Maximally Non-Planar Unphysical Discontinuities}

1601: 

1602: We consider next the unphysical discontinuities that are our 

1603: principal interest.

1604: According to the discussion in Section 3, we are looking for a triple 

1605: discontinuity of the form of Fig.~3.5 that treats the three cut lines of the

1606: quark loop symmetrically so that, in a  

1607: physical region, the sign of the energy component can be 

1608: the same for all three on-shell states. We will, therefore, confine 

1609: our discussion to a search for a symmetric triple discontinuity. 

1610: As we noted, if the normal cutting rules apply 

1611: there is no triple discontinuity (symmetric or not) of the Fig.~3.5  kind.

1612: We consider whether the direct evaluation of discontinuities 

1613: gives the same result. 

1614: 

1615: The discontinuity we 

1616: discussed above occurred in a physical region that is unsymmetric 

1617: in that $P_2$ is the momentum of an incoming particle while 

1618: $P_1$ is the momentum of an outgoing particle.

1619: To look for a symmetric discontinuity we will 

1620: use an analysis that treats the complete graph symmetrically throughout.

1621: To this end, we start in the symmetric asymptotic region (\ref{np3})

1622: where all momenta are real and 

1623: $$

1624: s_{i'j}~\sim ~-p_i p_j ~~<~0

1625: \auto\label{ninv}

1626: $$

1627: In this region, the diagram is defined by the usual $i\epsilon$ prescription.

1628: Since all three invariants must be positive, the triple discontinuity of

1629: Fig.~3.5 can only be present in the triple-regge limit if we allow the large

1630: momenta involved to be unphysical. A symmetric way to do this is to start 

1631: from the real physical region and take

1632: $$

1633: p_i ~\to ~ e^{-i\pi /2} p_i~= i p_i~,~~i=1,2,3 ~~~~~

1634: => s_{i'j}~\sim ~ (- ip_i)(i p_j) ~~>~0  

1635: \auto\label{pinv}

1636: $$

1637: 

1638: Given the symmetry of the present discussion, 

1639: it is immediately apparent that there will not be a (symmetric)

1640: triple discontinuity, as we now argue.

1641: Using the above analysis, logarithms will be generated by each of the $k_i$ 

1642: integrations. If we consider again the region where the 

1643: transverse momenta are close to zero then, from (\ref{5an}), the requirement 

1644: that the energy component of each on-shell line in the loop have the same sign

1645: is equivalent to requiring that the $q_{i^-}$ all have the same sign. 

1646: This, in turn, requires 

1647: that the $x_i$ should all have the same sign.

1648: However, in the symmetric real physical region, 

1649: if $x_1$ and $x_2$ have the same sign, 

1650: the logarithmic branch cuts in $P_1$ and $P_2$ lie on the same side 

1651: of the $x_3$ contour as illustrated in Fig.~4.5.

1652: \begin{center}

1653: \epsfxsize=2in

1654: \epsffile{chir54.ps}

1655: 

1656: Fig.~4.5 The Symmetric Location of Branch-Cuts in the $x_3$-plane. 

1657: \end{center}

1658: Since the continuation

1659: (\ref{pinv}) is symmetric they will remain on the same side after the

1660: continuation. 

1661: As a consequence, in the symmetric $x_i$ region, 

1662: the contour will not be trapped and distorted as 

1663: one branch point moves aound the other, as it was in Fig.~4.3, and no

1664: discontinuity will result. We conclude therefore that, 

1665: for the graph we are discussing, 

1666: discontinuities can only be generated in asymmetric 

1667: regions of the $x_i$ that can 

1668: not provide the symmetric triple discontinuity that we are looking for.

1669: The foregoing analysis also precludes the occurence of a triple discontinuity,

1670: that is appropriately symmetric, in the diagram of Fig.~3.6. 

1671: 

1672: \subhead{4.3 A Symmetric Unphysical Triple Discontinuity}

1673: 

1674: To obtain a symmetric triple discontinuity we look for a graph that has the

1675: appropriate overall symmetry and also, for each $i \neq j \neq k$,

1676: has logarithmic branch

1677: cuts on both sides of the $x_i$ contour

1678: in a symmetric region of $x_j$ and $x_k$. With these requirements in mind, 

1679: an obvious graph to consider is that of Fig.~3.7. To discuss this graph we 

1680: continue, for simplicity, to take $Q_1=Q_2=Q_3=0$. Two symmetric (distinct)

1681: routes for the internal momenta are shown in Fig.~4.6. 

1682: To be consistent with our previous notation we have used the notation that 

1683: we direct the $k_i$ momenta in the opposite direction to the $P_i$,

1684: $k_i'$ momenta in the opposite direction to the $P_i'$ (i.e. in the same

1685: direction as the $P_i$) and direct the internal loop momentum in the

1686: same direction as the $k_i'$ momenta.

1687: 

1688: For a threshold corresponding to the cutting of particular

1689: lines of the internal quark loop to be generated the  

1690: external loop momentum generating the relevant logarithms

1691: must pass through at least one of the lines. With this constraint,

1692: only the routing shown in 

1693: Fig.~4.6(a) will give both discontinuities of the kind we are looking for

1694: and the $\gamma$-matrix structure for on-shell contributions

1695: that we show, in the next Section, gives the anomaly.

1696: The routing of Fig.~4.6(b) 

1697: would be appropriate for discussing 

1698: the triple discontinuity of Fig.~3.7(b). However, as we noted in the previous

1699: Section, and will explain further below,

1700: this triple discontinuity does not contain the symmetric momentum configuration

1701: needed for the anomaly.

1702: 

1703: Using the momentum routing of Fig.~4.6(a) 

1704: we consider the logarithms generated by both the $k_i$ and $k_i'$ loop 

1705: integrations. Extracting all logarithms places on-shell all the hatched lines

1706: of Fig.~4.6(a), and 

1707: gives leading behavior of the form of (\ref{211}) multiplied by double 

1708: logarithms of each of the $P_{i^+}$.

1709: \newline \parbox{3in}{ 

1710: \begin{center}

1711: \epsfxsize=2.4in

1712: \epsffile{chir11.ps}

1713: \newline (a)

1714: \end{center}}

1715: \parbox{3in}{ 

1716: \begin{center}

1717: \epsfxsize=2.4in

1718: \epsffile{chir22.ps}

1719: \newline (b)

1720: \end{center}}

1721: \begin{center}

1722: Fig.~4.6 Labeling Momenta for Fig.~3.7(a).

1723: \end{center}

1724: How the logarithms cancel or combine with other diagrams is, of course, 

1725: a very complicated problem.

1726: As we have emphasized, to discuss this 

1727: systematically we must 

1728: consider all the multiple asymptotic discontinuities that occur 

1729: rather than the behavior of full diagrams. Our present concern is, however,

1730: the much narrower purpose of determining only whether there is 

1731: a symmetric triple discontinuity in which the anomaly can occur.

1732: 

1733: As above, to study discontinuities

1734: we keep the $q$-dependence of all logarithms together with all

1735: $i\epsilon$ dependence.

1736: We consider specifically the logarithms generated by

1737: the $k_1$ and $k_1'$ loops, but the symmetry of the diagram 

1738: obviously determines that the others can be treated identically. The loops,

1739: extracted from Fig.~4.6, are shown in Fig.~4.7.

1740: The $k_1$ loop is identical to those of Fig.4.2 and 

1741: can be evaluated analagously.

1742: \begin{center}

1743: \epsfxsize=3.5in

1744: \epsffile{chir7.ps}

1745: \newline Fig.~4.7 (a) The $k_1$ Loop (b) The $k_1'$ Loop.

1746: \end{center}

1747: Using a similar analysis, the $k_1'$ loop gives an integral of the form

1748: $$

1749: \int_0^{(k_2+q)_{1^-}}~dk_{11^-}' ~~\cdots

1750: \auto\label{l54}

1751: $$

1752: 

1753: If we again go to the region where all transverse momenta are close 

1754: to zero then,We have drawn the diagrams as basic anomaly processes in Fig.~6.1 

1755: using (\ref{5an}), it follows that after the $k_2$ integration

1756: $$

1757: k_{21^-} ~ \sim ~k_{20} ~\sim ~q^2/q_{2^-}~ << q_{1^-}

1758: \auto\label{l55}

1759: $$

1760: Therefore, we can take the upper end-point in (\ref{l54}) to be $q_{1^-}$. In 

1761: this case both the $k_1$ and $k_1'$ integrations give logarithms with $q_{1^-}$

1762: in the argument - but with opposite signs.

1763: We then have branch-cuts located as in Fig.~4.8(a) in each of the 

1764: $x_1,x_2$ and $x_3$ planes.

1765: \begin{center}

1766: \epsfxsize=5.5in

1767: \epsffile{chir550.ps}

1768: \newline Fig.~4.8 (a) Branch Points in the $x_i$-plane 

1769: (b) $p_i ~\to ~ e^{-i\pi /2} p_i~= i p_i~,~~i=1,2,3$ 

1770: \end{center}

1771: We have included the poles at $q^2=0$ and $x_i=0$

1772: and have used different $\lambda_i$ and $\lambda_i'$

1773: for each branch-cut to allow us to separate the branch points in our 

1774: discussion. 

1775: 

1776: With values of the $\lambda_i$ and $\lambda_i'$ implied 

1777: by Fig.~4.8(a),

1778: we could clearly obtain a discontinuity in $s_{jk'}$ (due to the two

1779: closest branch points) by repeating the 

1780: discussion illustrated by Fig.~4.3. The discontinuity would similarly be an 

1781: integral between the two branch points involved, as in Fig.~4.3(d), 

1782: but because of the additional

1783: branch points that are present, the contour could not be opened up as in 

1784: Fig.~4.4. Therefore, having taken $x_j, x_k > 0$ so that the branch 

1785: cuts lie  as in Fig.~4.8(a),

1786: the discontinuity would involve only pure imaginary or negative 

1787: real part values of $x_i$. Consequently,

1788: any further discontinuity obtained by the collision of 

1789: branch points in the $x_j$ or $x_k$ planes would have to involve mixed 

1790: real part signs for

1791: the $x_i$. We conclude (not surprisingly) that 

1792: in the physical region a triple discontinuity can not be obtained that 

1793: involves only positive values of all three $x_i$.

1794: 

1795: This brings us to the central point of the paper. If

1796: we go to the unphysical

1797: region (\ref{pinv}), where we expect to encounter

1798: an unphysical triple discontinuity, the last analysis changes in a crucial

1799: manner. The 

1800: resulting location of branch cuts is now as shown in Fig.~4.8(b), allowing

1801: the integration contour to be rotated as illustrated. 

1802: In Fig.~4.8(b) we have also, for emphasis, 

1803: chosen significantly different values of the $\lambda_i$ and $\lambda_i'$.

1804: If we again determine the discontinuity associated with the collision of the 

1805: two nearest branch points, as above, the result will be the contour 

1806: integral of the double discontinuity shown in Fig.~4.9.

1807: \begin{center}

1808: \epsfxsize=4in

1809: \epsffile{chir560.ps}

1810: 

1811: Fig.~4.9 The unphysical region discontinuity.

1812: \end{center}

1813: Now the integral involves positive real values of $x_i$ and, as illustrated,

1814: the asymptotic limit gives a loop integral over just positive values.

1815: The contour integral can not be opened up, however, since the other branch cuts

1816: remain.

1817: 

1818: Having derived a first discontinuity from two branch points in the 

1819: $x_i$ plane, as in Fig.~4.9, it is straightforward

1820: to keep the remaining branch points and move on to the $x_j$ and $x_k$ planes

1821: where, in each case, only two branch cuts now appear. In both planes,

1822: discontinuities of the form of Fig.~4.9 occur, provided the 

1823: $x_i$ integration is restricted to positive real values. Therefore, we obtain 

1824: a triple discontinuity in which each of the $x_i$, $x_j$ and $x_k$

1825: integrations is consistently over positive values and the asymptotic 

1826: contour is obtained as illustrated by the first two contours in Fig.~4.10.

1827: \begin{center}

1828: \epsfxsize=4in

1829: \epsffile{chir511.ps}

1830: 

1831: Fig.~4.10 Contours for the $x_i$, $x_j$ and $x_k$ integrations.

1832: \end{center}

1833: Since all logarithmic branch cuts are now removed, all three contours can 

1834: be opened up to obtain the last contour of Fig.~4.10 which is, once again the

1835: original contour of integration for each of $x_i$, $x_j$ and $x_k$.

1836: We thus obtain a triple discontinuity which, at first sight, corresponds to

1837: the usual cutting rules since all cut lines are on-shell. 

1838: However, the triple discontinuity is truly symmetric and as a result

1839: each discontinuity is, necessarily, a pseudothreshold. There is also

1840: a very important further subtlety.

1841: 

1842: If we consider the discontinuity arising from the pinching of logarithms 

1843: of $p_1\lambda_1$ and $p_2\lambda_2'$, for example, then the lines  

1844: put on-shell in the discontinuity are those that have thick hatches in

1845: Fig.~4.11(a).

1846: \begin{center}

1847: \epsfxsize=4.5in

1848: \epsffile{chir512.ps}

1849: 

1850: Fig.~4.11 On-shell lines for (a) an $s_{12'}$ discontinuity (b) a potential

1851: $s_{13'}$ discontinuity.

1852: \end{center}

1853: These lines are only a subset of those required to obtain a 

1854: complete cut of the diagram. This implies that the corresponding

1855: pinching does not, by itself, give a singularity of the complete integral and

1856: a-priori the integration contour could be deformed away from the pinched

1857: region.

1858: To obtain a complete cut we must add the lines that have thin hatches in

1859: Fig.~4.11(a). When 

1860: these lines are on shell the pinching does give an overall singularity.

1861: But, if we require a common sign for the $x_i$

1862: the two thin-hatched lines again have the wrong momentum direction

1863: to straightforwardly combine with the asymptotic

1864: pinching to give what would be a physical sheet 

1865: ``asymptotic normal threshold''. However,

1866: each of the two thin hatched lines is separately placed on shell 

1867: by one of the additional discontinuities. Therefore, the full 

1868: triple discontinuity we have found does correspond to a triplet 

1869: $\{s_{12'},s_{23'},s_{32'}\}$ of invariant (pseudothreshold) cuts. 

1870: 

1871: If we consider instead 

1872: the discontinuity arising from the pinching of logarithms 

1873: of $p_1\lambda_1$ and $p_3\lambda_3'$ then the lines put on shell are 

1874: those hatched in Fig.~4.11(b). In this case there is no simple way to 

1875: include additional lines and obtain an invariant cut. Therefore, this pinching

1876: can not be extended to a complete cut of the diagram.

1877: We conclude that the triple discontinuity in $\{s_{12'},s_{23'},s_{32'}\}$

1878: that is illustrated in Fig.~3.8 is the only combination that exists, 

1879: as an extension of the above analysis. It

1880: is symmetric, with each of the internal quark lines 

1881: that are put on shell by $k_i$ integrations treated symmetrically. 

1882: All three of these lines contribute to each invariant cut but, as we 

1883: have just discussed, two of them always have the 

1884: wrong $i\epsilon$ prescription, relative to the third,

1885: to give a physical normal threshold. Singularities associated with 

1886: combinations of forward and backward going particles are 

1887: ``mixed-$\alpha$'' solutions of the Landau equations\cite{arw00}.

1888: In general, such ``pseudothresholds'' are not 

1889: singular on the physical sheet because of the conflicting 

1890: $i\epsilon$ prescriptions. However, they are generally singular on 

1891: unphysical sheets and can appear in multiple 

1892: discontinuities. They would be particularly expected to appear

1893: in unphysical multiple discontinuities. 

1894: 

1895: Finally, we return to the triple discontinuity of Fig.~3.7(b),

1896: using the momentum routing of Fig.~4.6(b). Consider, for example, the 

1897: discontinuity in $s_{2'3}$. This will be due to the pinching of the

1898: $x_1$ integration contour by the logarithms generated from the $k_2'$ 

1899: and $k_3$ integrations. The relevant sub-part of Fig.~4.6(b) is shown in

1900: Fig.~4.12.

1901: \begin{center}

1902: \epsfxsize=2.5in

1903: \epsffile{chir222.ps}

1904: 

1905: Fig.~4.12 Part of the $q$ momentum flow within Fig.~4.6(b) 

1906: \end{center}

1907: That the direction of the $q$-momentum flow is opposite, 

1908: relative to $k_2'$ and $k_3$, along the relevant internal lines 

1909: implies that $x_2$ and $x_3$ must have opposite signs in order for the

1910: branch cuts to be on opposite sides of the $x_1$ contour.

1911: As a result no symmetric triple discontinuity exists.

1912: 

1913: There are clearly two criteria for the existence of a symmetric asymptotic

1914: triple discontinuity - that 

1915: we will appeal to further in the next Section. The first 

1916: is that the $q$ momentum flow must be in the same relative direction along 

1917: the relevant internal lines for each discontinuity. The second is that

1918: all internal loop lines, besides those in the remaining triangle, must be

1919: put on shell 

1920: by the combination of the three pinches of the $x_i$ integrations.

1921: 

1922: \newpage

1923: 

1924: \mainhead{5. THE TRIANGLE ANOMALY AND OTHER DIAGRAMS}

1925: 

1926: In this Section we discuss how the anomaly occurs in a reggeon vertex 

1927: obtained from the triple discontinuity of Fig.~3.8. 

1928: We will also consider other diagrams that can contribute

1929: and discuss how color quantum numbers

1930: determine which reggeon interactions are involved. 

1931: 

1932: 

1933: \subhead{5.1 The Asymptotic Amplitude}

1934: 

1935: We can briefly describe the calculation of the asymptotic amplitude

1936: obtained from Fig.~3.8 (in which all the cut lines 

1937: are put on-shell as described in the last Section) as follows.

1938: Additional background description of the method used

1939: can be found in \cite{arw01}. We begin by 

1940: adding in the numerator dependence that we essentially ignored in the 

1941: previous Section. For the external lines, additional powers of the external

1942: momenta are generated as in (\ref{lcan61}) and (\ref{coup}). As a result,

1943: inverse external momentum factors, such as ${p_{1'}}^{-1}$ in (\ref{l50}) and 

1944:  ${p_2}^{-1}$ in (\ref{l51}) are eliminated and the 

1945: factor of $P_{1^+}P_{2^+}P_{3^+}$ that appears in (\ref{211}) is produced.

1946: Also, if we use the natural transverse momenta

1947: given by (\ref{not-}), the light-like 

1948: $\gamma$-matrix couplings that appear at each of the vertices 

1949: of the internal loop

1950: (after the triple-regge limit is taken) are as illustrated in Fig.~5.1(a). 

1951: \begin{center}

1952: \epsfxsize=5.8in

1953: \epsffile{chir61.ps}

1954: \parbox{2.1in}{\centerline{(a)}}

1955: \parbox{2in}{\centerline{(b)}}

1956: \parbox{1.8in}{\centerline{(c)}}

1957: 

1958: Fig.~5.1 $\gamma$-matrix structure 

1959: for the reggeon interaction extracted from Fig.~3.7.

1960: \end{center}

1961: For the hatched lines that appear in both

1962: Fig.~5.1(a) and (b), we keep the $\gamma$ matrices shown. 

1963: These are the ``local couplings'' (see \cite{arw01}) that appear when that 

1964: part of the associated numerator is kept that cancels the 

1965: internal momentum factors that arise from the longitudinal

1966: loop momentum integrations

1967: (such as ${q_{1^-}}^{-1}$ in (\ref{l50}) and 

1968: ${q_{2^-}}^{-1}$ in (\ref{l51}) ). To justify this procedure 

1969: we appeal to the (``infra-red non-renormalization'') 

1970: argument of Coleman and Grossman\cite{cg} 

1971: that only a fermion triangle diagram, with particular helicities for  

1972: the couplings, can produce the anomaly infra-red divergence.

1973: 

1974: We introduce external transverse momenta 

1975: (that we essentially ignored in the previous Section)

1976: using the notation illustrated in Fig.~5.2(a).

1977: \begin{center}

1978: \parbox{2.9in}{

1979: \epsfxsize=2.5in

1980: \epsffile{chir613.ps}

1981: }

1982: \parbox{2.9in}{

1983: \epsfxsize=2.5in

1984: \epsffile{chir612.ps}

1985: }

1986: \newline \centerline{(a)\hspace{3in}(b)}

1987: 

1988: Fig.~5.2 (a) Notation for (\ref{611})~~ (b) Notation for (\ref{612})

1989: \end{center}

1990: The resulting asymptotic behavior then has the form

1991: $$

1992: \eqalign{ ~~~~~P_{1^+}~ P_{2^+}~ P_{3^+}~

1993: \prod_{i=1}^3 \int & { d^2 k_{i1}d^2 k_{i2} d^2 k_{i3}\over  

1994: k_{ i1}^2  k_{i2}^2 k_{i3}^2 }  

1995: ~~ \delta^2 (Q_{i\perp} -  k_{i1} -  k_{i2}  - k_{i3})~G^3_i(k_{i1},k_{i2},k_{i3} 

1996: \cdots) \cr 

1997: &~~~~~~~~\times ~ R^9(Q_1,Q_2,Q_3,

1998: k_{11}, k_{12},k_{13} \cdots )} \auto \label{611}

1999: $$

2000: where $R^9$ is the triangle diagram illustrated in Fig.~5.1(c). Note that

2001: this diagram depends only on $k_{i2} + k_{i3}$ (i.e. it is

2002: independent of $k_{i2} - k_{i3}$).

2003: 

2004: \subhead{5.2 The Reggeon interaction Anomaly}

2005:  

2006: By comparing with the generalization\cite{arw01} 

2007: of (\ref{2ra1}) and (\ref{2ra}) to three reggeons in each $t$-channel,

2008: we can directly interpret $R^9$ as a nine-reggeon interaction. 

2009: If we write 

2010: $$

2011: k_{i1} ~= ~q_i + k_i~, ~~~~ k_{i2} ~= ~(q_i - k_i)/2 -k_i'~, ~~~~

2012: k_{i3} ~=~(q_i - k_i)/2 +k_i'~,

2013: \auto\label{dki6}

2014: $$

2015: then the momentum flow into the triangle diagram of Fig.~5.1(c) is as 

2016: shown in Fig.~5.2(b). Using momentum conservation, i.e. 

2017: $$

2018: q_1~+~q_2~+~q_3~=~0

2019: \auto\label{mcon}

2020: $$

2021: $R^9$, which does not depend on the $k_i'$, 

2022: can be written (very similarly to (\ref{580})) as 

2023: $$

2024: \eqalign{R^9(q_1,q_2,q_3&,k_1,k_2,k_3) ~=

2025: \int d^4 k Tr \{ 

2026: \gamma_5 \gamma^{1^-3^+2^-}(\st{k}+ \st{k}_2 + \st{q}_3 - \st{k}_1 )\cr

2027: &{ 

2028: \gamma_5 \gamma^{2^-1^+3^-}(\st{k}-\st{q}_2 + \st{q}_3 -\st{k}_2 -\st{k}_3) 

2029: \gamma_5 \gamma^{3^-2^+1^-}

2030: (\st{k}+ \st{k}_1 - \st{q}_2 -\st{k}_3)\} 

2031: \over  (k + k_2 + q_3 - k_1 )^2  

2032: (k -q_2 +q_3 -k_2 -k_3)^2 

2033:  (k + k_1 - q_2 - k_3)^2 } }

2034: \auto\label{612}

2035: $$

2036: where 

2037: $$ 

2038: \eqalign{\gamma^{1^-3^+2^-}~&=~

2039: \gamma_{1^-}\gamma_{3^+}\gamma_{2^-} ~=~\gamma^{-,-,-}~-~ i~

2040: \gamma^{-,-,+}  ~\gamma_5 \cr

2041: \gamma^{2^-1^+3^-}~&=~\gamma_{2^-}\gamma_{1^+}\gamma_{3^-}

2042:  ~=~\gamma^{-,-,-}~-~ i~

2043: \gamma^{+,-,-}  ~\gamma_5 \cr

2044: \gamma^{3^-2^+1^-}~&=~\gamma_{3^-}\gamma_{2^+}\gamma_{1^-}

2045:  ~=~\gamma^{-,-,-}~-~ i~

2046: \gamma^{-,+,-}  ~\gamma_5 }

2047: \auto\label{g63}

2048: $$

2049: and $\gamma^{\pm,\pm,\pm}$ is defined by (\ref{g64}). Again we obtain

2050: a particular component of the tensor that describes the triangle diagram

2051: contribution to a three current vertex function, i.e. we can write

2052: $$

2053: \eqalign{R^9(q_1,q_2,q_3,k_1,k_2,k_3)~=~&

2054: (n^{-,-,-}_{\mu} -i~ n^{-,-,+}_{\mu})

2055: (n^{-,-,-}_{\alpha} -i~ n^{+,-,-}_{\alpha})

2056: (n^{-,-,-}_{\beta} -i~ n^{-,+,-}_{\beta})\cr

2057: & ~~~~~~\times~~T^{\mu\alpha\beta}(k_1-k_3-q_2,k_2-k_1--q_3) }

2058: \auto\label{tric}

2059: $$

2060: where $T^{\mu\alpha\beta}$ is the triangle diagram three current amplitude.

2061: 

2062: To discuss the occurence of the anomaly in (\ref{g63}) we first recall

2063: the general invariant decomposition of 

2064: $T_{\mu \alpha \beta}$ as discussed in \cite{arw02}. With the notation

2065: illustrated in Fig.~5.3  

2066: \begin{center}

2067: \leavevmode

2068: \epsfxsize=2.2in

2069: \epsffile{trntp.ps}

2070: 

2071: Fig.~5.3 Triangle Diagram Notation

2072: \end{center}

2073: we can write 

2074: $$

2075: \eqalign{T_{\mu \alpha \beta}(p_1,p_2) ~&= ~ A_1~

2076: {\hbox{\large $\epsilon$}}_{\sigma\alpha\beta\mu}~ p_1^{\sigma}  ~+~ A_2~ 

2077: {\hbox{\large $\epsilon$}}_{\sigma\alpha\beta\mu} ~p_2^{\sigma} 

2078: ~+~A_3~

2079: {\hbox{\large $\epsilon$}}_{\delta \sigma\alpha\mu}~ 

2080: p_{1\beta}p_1^{\delta} p_2^{\sigma}  \cr

2081: ~~~& +~A_4~  {\hbox{\large $\epsilon$}}_{\delta \sigma\alpha\mu}

2082: ~ p_{2\beta}p_1^{\delta}

2083: p_2^{\sigma}~+~A_5~  {\hbox{\large $\epsilon$}}_{\delta \sigma\beta\mu}

2084: ~p_{1\alpha}p_1^{\delta}

2085: p_2^{\sigma}~+~A_6~ {\hbox{\large $\epsilon$}}_{\delta \sigma\beta\mu} 

2086: ~ p_{2\alpha}p_1^{\delta}

2087: p_2^{\sigma} }

2088: \auto\label{inde}

2089: $$

2090: The ultra-violet anomaly occurs in the first two terms of (\ref{inde}),

2091: i.e. 

2092: $$

2093: T_{\mu \alpha \beta}(k_1,k_2) ~= ~ {1\over 4 \pi^2}~

2094: {\hbox{\large $\epsilon$}}_{\sigma\alpha\beta\mu}~ p_1^{\sigma}  ~+~ 

2095: {1\over 4 \pi^2}~ 

2096: {\hbox{\large $\epsilon$}}_{\sigma\alpha\beta\mu} ~p_2^{\sigma} ~~+~~\cdots

2097: \auto\label{uvco}

2098: $$ 

2099: leading to the well-known divergence equation 

2100: $$

2101: (p_1 + p_2)^{\mu}~T_{\mu \alpha \beta}~=~

2102: {1\over 2 {\pi}^2 }~{\hbox{\Large $\epsilon$}}_{\delta\sigma\alpha\beta} 

2103: ~p_1^{\delta} p_2^{\sigma}

2104: \auto\label{awi}

2105: $$

2106: The ultra-violet anomaly can therefore   

2107: appear only in a tensor component with three orthogonal Lorentz indices.

2108: If we keep just the $\gamma_5$ parts of the

2109: three vertices in (\ref{g63}) we obtain a non-zero projection on 

2110: such a tensor component. In fact this contribution to $R^9$ retains the full

2111: symmetry of the original feynman diagram of Fig.~3.7(a) and, as a result, 

2112: has the necessary symmetry to contain the ultra-violet anomaly. 

2113: 

2114: The infra-red ``anomaly pole'' occurs in  $A_3$ and $A_6$. When $p_1^2=0$

2115: $$

2116: A_3~=-A_6~=~{1 \over 2{\pi}^2 }{1 \over p_2^2 -q^2}

2117:  \biggl({p_2^2 \over p_2^2 - q^2}~ln{p_2^2

2118: \over q^2} ~-~1 \biggr) 

2119: \auto\label{k1m0}

2120: $$

2121: and when $p_2^2 \to 0$ 

2122: $$

2123: A_3~\to ~ {1 \over 2 {\pi}^2}~  {1 \over q^2}

2124: \auto\label{k20}

2125: $$

2126: That is, a pole appears in $A_3$ ($= - A_6$) and, as a consequence of all

2127: divergence equations, the coefficient is also given by the anomaly.

2128: If, instead, we integrate over spacelike values of $q^2$, we obtain 

2129: $$

2130: \int~ dq^2~A_3(q^2,p_2^2)~f(q^2,p_2^2)~

2131: \centerunder{$\longrightarrow$}{\raisebox{-6mm}{$k_2^2 \to 0$}} ~ ~

2132: {1\over \pi}~f(0,0)~=~ \int~ dq^2~{1\over \pi}\delta(q^2)~f(q^2,0)

2133: \auto\label{dfn}

2134: $$

2135: (provided $f(q^2,p^2_2)$ is regular at $q^2,p_2^2 = 0$). 

2136: As we discussed in \cite{arw02}, the pole (\ref{k20}) is responsible

2137: for the appearance of a Goldstone boson pole in amplitudes containing

2138: the chiral flavor anomaly. For the reggeized gluon interactions 

2139: that we are discussing it is the

2140: $\delta$-function property that is important. 

2141: 

2142: The tensor factors multiplying $A_3$ and $A_6$ in $T_{\mu \alpha \beta}$

2143: potentially suppress the $q^2 \to 0$ divergence due to the anomaly pole.

2144: To describe this, we consider a specific momentum configuration, e.g.

2145: $$

2146: \eqalign{~~~~&p_1 ~= ~(p/\sqrt{2},p /\sqrt{2},0,0)  \cr

2147: & p_2 ~= ~(- p/\sqrt{2},- p\cos{\theta}/\sqrt{2}, 0,

2148: - p \sin{\theta}/\sqrt{2})\cr

2149: &\centerunder{$\sim$}{\raisebox{-4mm}{$\theta \to 0$}} ~-~p_1 ~-~ 

2150: (0,0, p \theta/\sqrt{2}, 0)~= ~-~p_1 ~-~(0,0,q,0)   }

2151: \auto\label{k+k-2}

2152: $$

2153: where

2154: $$

2155: q^2 ~=~ (p_1 +p_2)^2 ~

2156: ~\centerunder{$\sim$}{\raisebox{-4mm}{$\theta \to 0$}}

2157: \auto\label{qth}

2158: $$ 

2159: In this configuration, 

2160: we obtain the largest numerator if we consider

2161: the anomaly contribution of $A_3$ to, say, $ T_{--3}$. This has the form

2162: $$ 

2163:  T_{--3}~=~ {\hbox{\Large $\epsilon$}}_{\sigma\delta - 3}~ 

2164: {p_1^{\sigma} p_2^{\delta}~p_{1-} \over q^2} 

2165: ~~=~{~p^2 [p \theta /\sqrt{2} ] \over q^2}~ ~~

2166: \centerunder{$\sim$}{\raisebox{-4mm}{$\theta \to 0$}}~~~

2167: {\sqrt{2}p \over \theta}

2168: \auto\label{A3an11}

2169: $$

2170: and so the divergence is suppressed, but only partially. A 

2171: divergence of the form (\ref{A3an11}) is the strongest that can be obtained.

2172: 

2173: In general, to obtain the maximal infra-red divergence

2174: we must have a component of $T_{\mu\alpha\beta}$  with

2175: $\mu= \alpha $ and with $\mu$ having a light-like projection.

2176: The corresponding

2177: light-like momentum must also flow through the diagram. $\beta $ must 

2178: have an orthogonal spacelike projection and the 

2179: transverse momentum that vanishes, as $q^2 \to 0$,

2180: must be in the remaining orthogonal

2181: spacelike direction. If we choose the $\gamma_5$

2182: component from all three vertices in (\ref{g63}) 

2183: the first requirement is not met. However, if we choose the 

2184: $\gamma_5$ component from one 

2185: vertex and choose the vector coupling from the other

2186: two vertices, it is met.

2187: The finite light-like momentum involved must then have a projection on 

2188: $n^{-,-,- \mu}$ and the orthogonal spacelike momentum must be distinct

2189: in each case. There is then a divergence of the form of 

2190: (\ref{A3an11}).

2191: 

2192: The three possibilities for the infra-red anomaly divergence 

2193: to occur are associated 

2194: with the three distinct hexagraphs described in \cite{arw01}, 

2195: and hence with three distinct 

2196: helicity amplitudes.

2197: In the analysis of \cite{arw01} the co-ordinates used were asymmetric and

2198: were chosen to isolate one anomaly configuration. These co-ordinates were

2199: naturally associated with a particular hexagraph and the corresponding 

2200: helicity amplitudes and limits. We could equally well use these 

2201: co-ordinates in discussing Fig.~3.8. In which case, the $\gamma_5$

2202: and non-$\gamma_5$ components in two of the three 

2203: $\gamma$-matrices in (\ref{g63}) are interchanged.  

2204: The anomaly pole contribution then comes from the three $\gamma_5$ components.

2205: In either case, the result is the same. 

2206: We anticipate, but will not attempt to demonstrate here,

2207: that for each hexagraph amplitude 

2208: the ultraviolet anomaly and anomaly pole components are

2209: related by reggeon Ward identities, just as corresponding components

2210: in (\ref{inde}) are related by normal vector Ward identities. (Note that the

2211: ``ultraviolet'' region for (\ref{612}) is actually the region $k 

2212: ~\centerunder{\raisebox{0.5mm}{$<$}}{\raisebox{0mm}{$\sim$}}~ P_{1^+}

2213: \sim P_{2^+} \sim P_{3^+}$, rather than $k \sim \infty$.)

2214: This implies that the occurrence of the infra-red and ultra-violet anomalies

2215: in diagrams will be closely correlated. We will exploit this in the following.

2216: 

2217: As discussed at length in \cite{arw01}, while the triple discontinuity

2218: giving Fig.~5.1 occurs in an unphysical region, there will be a

2219: corresponding ``real'' reggeon interaction

2220: in physical regions. In particular,

2221: the anomaly infra-red divergence can occur in the physical-region

2222: configuration shown in Fig.~5.4. (The dots indicate that a local

2223: interaction is involved.)

2224: The $\gamma_5$ interaction is at the intermediate vertex and the 

2225: light-like momenta are as in(\ref{chm1})-(\ref{chm30}).  

2226: Fig.~5.4 can then be identified with

2227: the basic anomaly process of Fig.~3.2 except

2228: that there is an additional wee gluon involved.

2229: There are also additional gluons with finite transverse 

2230: momentum. 

2231: \begin{center}

2232: \epsfxsize=2.2in

2233: \epsffile{chir62.ps}

2234: 

2235: Fig.~5.4 A basic anomaly process associated with Fig.~5.1.

2236: \end{center}

2237: 

2238: \subhead{5.3 Other Diagrams}

2239: 

2240: We now consider whether, based on the discontinuity analysis

2241: of the previous Section, there are other diagrams besides that of 

2242: Fig.~3.7(a) that could contain the anomaly. We will not consider 

2243: all possible diagrams - there are simply too many. We will make

2244: the simplifying assumption that 

2245: only diagrams that are completely symmetric (with respect to the three

2246: $t$- channels) are relevant. There are two 

2247: justifications ons for this assumption. First there is

2248: the infra-red light-cone argument discussed in Section 3. Secondly, we 

2249: anticipate, as we have just discussed, 

2250: that infra-red and ultraviolet anomalies should occur together

2251: so that reggeon Ward identities

2252: are satisfied. It seems that at this ``simplest'' level, where it first

2253: emerges, the ultraviolet anomaly is very likely to require a symmetric

2254: diagram.

2255: 

2256: If we begin from the diagram of Fig.~3.7(a) and retain only the exterior

2257: lines of the internal loop we obtain the ``bare'' diagram of Fig.~5.4(a).

2258: The exterior lines give the triangle diagram in the reggeon vertex. 

2259: Since they must remain uncut when a triple discontinuity is taken they

2260: must remain on the exterior, as in the bare diagram. If we then 

2261: add further lines such that a complete loop is formed

2262: within a symmetric diagram, and there is no sub-loop, the only 

2263: new possibilities (up to reflections) are shown in Figs.~5.4(b)-(d).  

2264: \newline \parbox{1.45in}{

2265: \begin{center}

2266: \epsfxsize=1.1in \epsffile{chir614.ps}

2267: \newline (a)

2268: \end{center}}

2269: \parbox{1.45in}{

2270: \begin{center}

2271: \epsfxsize=1.1in \epsffile{chir615.ps}

2272: \newline (b)

2273: \end{center}}

2274: \parbox{1.45in}{

2275: \begin{center}

2276: \epsfxsize=1.1in \epsffile{chir616.ps}

2277: \newline (c)

2278: \end{center}}

2279: \parbox{1.45in}{

2280: \begin{center}

2281: \epsfxsize=1.1in \epsffile{chir617.ps}

2282: \newline (d)

2283: \end{center}}

2284: \newline\centerline{

2285: Fig.~5.4 (a) The ``bare'' diagram (b) - 

2286: (d) Full diagrams.}

2287: 

2288: The diagram of Fig.~5.4(b) can be analysed very similarly

2289: to our analysis of Fig.~3.7(a). 

2290: As we described at the end of the last Section,

2291: a pseudothreshold triple discontinuity 

2292: will be present if the six non-exterior loop lines can be grouped

2293: into three pairs, each associated with a particular discontinuity, 

2294: such that the loop momentum flows across the discontinuity

2295: line in the same direction for each pair.

2296: In Fig.~5.5(a) we have drawn the appropriate

2297: cuts of Fig.~5.4(b) and in Fig.~5.5(b) we have isolated the cut lines that

2298: contribute to one discontinuity.

2299: \newline \parbox{2.4in}{

2300: \begin{center}

2301: \epsfxsize=1.9in

2302: \epsffile{chir615d.ps}

2303: \newline (a)

2304: \end{center}}

2305: \parbox{2.4in}{

2306: \begin{center}

2307: $~$

2308: \newline $~$

2309: \newline $~$

2310: \epsfxsize=2in

2311: \epsffile{chir615d1.ps}

2312: \newline $~$

2313: \newline (b)

2314: \end{center}

2315: }

2316: \parbox{1.1in}{

2317: \begin{center}

2318: $~$

2319: \newline $~$

2320: \newline $~$

2321: \newline $~$

2322: \epsfxsize=0.75in

2323: \epsffile{chir615d2.ps}

2324: \newline $~$

2325: \newline $~$

2326: \newline (c)

2327: \end{center}

2328: }

2329: \begin{center}

2330: Fig.~5.5 (a) Cuts (b) one discontinuity (c) a

2331: $\gamma$-matrix vertex, of Fig.~5.3(b).  

2332: \end{center}

2333: Both criteria for a symmetric triple discontinuity are satisfied.

2334: However, we must also consider the $\gamma$-matrix structure of the vertices

2335: that appear in the triangle diagram that is obtained. In fact, we find 

2336: products of $\gamma$-matrices of the form shown in Fig.~5.5(c), which

2337: do not produce the $\gamma_5$ coupling needed for the anomaly. The diagrams 

2338: of Fig.~5.4(c) and (d) clearly do not have sufficient non-planar

2339: structure to give a pseudothreshold triple discontinuity. We conclude, 

2340: therefore, that none of the additional diagrams of Fig.~5.4 can produce

2341: an anomaly contribution to a reggeon vertex. 

2342: 

2343: \subhead{5.4 Color Factors and Signature}

2344: 

2345: Similarly to our discussion of the triple discontinuity of Fig.3.7(b),

2346: a priori $R^9$ can contribute to 

2347: vertices for fewer than nine reggeons. However, in \cite{arw01} we 

2348: argued that the anomaly would cancel, after all integrations

2349: over transverse momenta, unless each reggeon state has

2350: anomalous color parity (not equal to the signature). 

2351: When SU(3) color amplitudes are obtained by

2352: first constructing the color superconducting theory with SU(2) color,

2353: as in \cite{arw02},

2354: the relevant reggeon anomaly interactions are those for SU(2) reggeon

2355: states. In this case the simplest reggeon state with anomalous color

2356: parity is the color zero, odd signature, three reggeon state. 

2357: A reggeon state that is 

2358: ``vector-like'' in that it has (close to) unit angular momentum 

2359: and appears in odd-signature amplitudes,

2360: is composed of (at least) three gluons, and has abnormal color parity,

2361: has all the quantum numbers of the anomaly current.

2362: As a result, the ultraviolet anomaly discussed above will directly involve

2363: interactions of the anomaly current.

2364: It is somewhat remarkable that we are led directly to 

2365: the anomaly current by looking for the infra-red anomaly within   

2366: reggeon interactions.

2367: For SU(3) color, a two reggeon even signature state with octet color and 

2368: odd color parity would also be possible. For color zero, however, 

2369: the three reggeon state is again the simplest possible. 

2370: 

2371: If each reggeon state must contain at least three reggeons, 

2372: the lowest-order reggeon vertex that can contain the anomaly 

2373: is the nine reggeon vertex. 

2374: In fact, we showed in \cite{arw01} that 

2375: the analyticity properties of amplitudes imply 

2376: that the anomaly can only appear when 

2377: signature conservation is also satisfied, which it is not

2378: if all three reggeon states carry odd signature. However, this 

2379: conservation rule should be satisfied only after 

2380: all relevant diagrams have been added. This would

2381: include the addition of all diagrams having the structure 

2382: of Fig.~3.7(a) but with (one or two)

2383: incoming and outgoing lines interchanged. 

2384: To avoid this cancelation additional reggeons (reggeized gluons or quarks)

2385: must be present. As we discuss in the next Section,

2386: additional reggeons are also required for the 

2387: infra-red anomaly to play the 

2388: dynamical role we anticipate. 

2389: 

2390: Amplitudes giving vertices with four reggeons in each reggeon state 

2391: no longer need to be completely symmetric, provided they collapse to give 

2392: a symmetric triangle diagram. In fact, when four reggeons (or more)

2393: are present in each

2394: state a new subtlety arises in the process of taking a  

2395: triple discontinuity. Consider the diagram 

2396: shown in Fig.~5.6, which is a simple generalization of the

2397: diagram of Fig.~3.7(a) that we have discussed so much. Two of the single 

2398: reggeon lines in Fig.~3.7(a) are replaced by two reggeons,  with no

2399: additional non-planarity. In Fig.~5.6 we have also drawn triplets of cuts 

2400: through the diagram in four distinct ways. 

2401: \newline \parbox{1.45in}{

2402: \begin{center}

2403: \epsfxsize=1.2in

2404: \epsffile{chir6201.ps}

2405: \end{center}

2406: }

2407: \parbox{1.45in}{

2408: \begin{center}

2409: \epsfxsize=1.2in

2410: \epsffile{chir6202.ps}

2411: \end{center}

2412: }\parbox{1.45in}{

2413: \begin{center}

2414: \epsfxsize=1.2in

2415: \epsffile{chir6203.ps}

2416: \end{center}

2417: }\parbox{1.45in}{

2418: \begin{center}

2419: \epsfxsize=1.2in

2420: \epsffile{chir6204.ps}

2421: \end{center}

2422: }

2423: \begin{center}

2424: Fig.~5.6 Four triple cuts of a diagram for four reggeon states

2425: \end{center}

2426: These are the only possible triplets

2427: if we require pairs of non-exterior loop lines to be

2428: associated with each cut, 

2429: such that the loop momentum flows across the cut 

2430: line in the same direction for each pair.

2431: However, if we consider just one triplet and 

2432: take asymptotic discontinuities for each cut (as above)

2433: by considering pairs of external logarithms, we do not obtain a 

2434: complete triple discontinuity of the diagram. There are always 

2435: three internal 

2436: lines that are not put on shell. As a result, one or more, of the pinchings

2437: does not give a complete, invariant, cut of the diagram.

2438: To obtain a genuine  

2439: triple discontinuity we have to combine all the pinchings of logaritms 

2440: involved in

2441: the four sets of cuts shown in Fig.~5.6. All internal lines are then on 

2442: shell and a complete triple discontinuity is obtained. The vertices for the 

2443: corresponding triangle are the rotationally

2444: symmetric products of $\gamma$-matrices shown in 

2445: Fig.~5.7 and so the extracted twelve reggeon vertex will contain the anomaly.

2446: \begin{center}

2447: \epsfxsize=1.5in

2448: \epsffile{chir621.ps}

2449: 

2450: Fig.~5.7 The $\gamma$-matrix vertices obtained from Fig.~5.6

2451: \end{center}

2452:  

2453: We will postpone a systematic discussion of cancelations,

2454: how and when the anomaly survives after all diagrams 

2455: are summed etc.,  until following papers.

2456: Our priority in this paper has been simply

2457: to find diagrams in which an asymptotic 

2458: discontinuity analysis determines 

2459: that the anomaly is definitively present

2460: in the extracted reggeon interaction. 

2461: 

2462: \newpage 

2463: 

2464: \mainhead{6. PION AND POMERON VERTICES IN COLOR SUPERCONDUCTING QCD}

2465: 

2466: For completeness, 

2467: we briefly describe the physical pomeron and pion interactions

2468: that appear in color superconducting QCD.   

2469: Pion scattering is described in \cite{arw02} and we anticipate that

2470: the corresponding multi-regge amplitudes are 

2471: given by modifying the procedure described in \cite{arw98}

2472: to incorporate the explicit structure of anomaly vertices that we have

2473: since discovered. 

2474: Here we give only enough details to show that 

2475: a staightforward extension of the above 

2476: analysis will demonstrate that such interactions contain the

2477: anomaly. 

2478:  

2479: When the SU(3) gauge symmetry of QCD is broken to SU(2) 

2480: the infra-red divergence\cite{arw02,arw98} that involves the

2481: anomaly and that actually dominates bound-state interactions

2482: occurs in diagrams that are very similar to the ones we have discussed.

2483: The divergence is 

2484: factorized off to give a wee-gluon condensate within both pion 

2485: (i.e. Goldstone boson) bound states and the pomeron.

2486: The pomeron is a single reggeon (i.e. a massive, SU(2) singlet, reggeized 

2487: gluon) within the wee-gluon condensate and 

2488: the pion is a quark/antiquark pair in the same condensate.

2489: A diagram contributing to the 

2490: triple-pomeron interaction is shown in Fig.~6.1(a)

2491: and a class of diagrams contributing to multipomeron interactions.

2492: is shown in Fig.~6.1(b).

2493: \newline \parbox{2.9in}{\begin{center}

2494: \epsfxsize=2.1in

2495: \epsffile{chir618.ps}

2496: \centerline{(a)}

2497: \end{center}

2498: }

2499: \parbox{2.9in}{\begin{center}

2500: \epsfxsize=2.1in

2501: \epsffile{chir63.ps}

2502: \centerline{(b)}

2503: \end{center}}

2504: \begin{center}

2505: Fig.~6.1 (a) The triple pomeron interaction (b) A multipomeron interaction. 

2506: \end{center}

2507: The scattering states are now pions and the solid, wavy, lines

2508: are reggeons. The dashed lines represent massless 

2509: gluons that carry zero transverse momentum and, in collaboration with

2510: the anomaly, produce the divergence. The $\delta$-function due to

2511: the anomaly produces transverse momentum conservation

2512: at the vertex where the reggeons interact. 

2513:  

2514: We have drawn the diagrams as basic anomaly processes in Fig.~6.1, rather 

2515: than in a form that exhibits their unphysical discontinuity

2516: properties.

2517: The triple pomeron process in Fig.~6.1(a) corresponds to a

2518: diagram that is just a little more 

2519: complicated than the diagram of Fig.~5.6. There is an additional reggeon

2520: in each of the initial and final wee gluon configurations. The accompanying

2521: reggeon state contains two gluons - which can give the imaginary part

2522: of the single reggeon state that is anticipated to survive

2523: in the pomeron\cite{arw02}.

2524: In both Fig.~6.1(a) and (b) the three

2525: multi-reggeon (pomeron) states that are interacting through the anomaly 

2526: all have a wee-gluon component that participates in the divergence.

2527: In the notation of (\ref{chm1})-(\ref{chm30}) the corresponding

2528: basic anomaly process involves (as already discussed in Section 3) 

2529: taking the limit $l \to 0$ 

2530: while simultaneously making a boost $a_z(\zeta)$

2531: such that $ l \cosh\zeta =n$ is kept finite.

2532: 

2533: The diagram that gives the

2534: pion/pomeron coupling utilized in \cite{arw02} is 

2535: shown in Fig.~6.2(a). The corresponding

2536: basic anomaly process is shown in Fig.~6.2(b)

2537: \newline \noindent \parbox{2.9in}{

2538: \begin{center}

2539: \epsfxsize=1.8in

2540: \epsffile{chir611.ps}

2541: \newline (a)

2542: \end{center}}

2543: \parbox{2.9in}{

2544: \begin{center}

2545: \epsfxsize=1.9in

2546: \epsffile{chir610.ps}

2547: \newline (b)

2548: \end{center}}

2549: \begin{center}

2550: Fig.~6.2 The Pion/Pomeron Coupling (a) the feynman diagram (b) the

2551: basic anomaly process

2552: \end{center}

2553: The diagram of Fig.~6.2(a) has a triple discontinuity

2554: structure very similar to that of Fig.~5.6.

2555: 

2556: \newpage

2557: 

2558: 

2559: \renewcommand{\theequation}{A.\arabic{equation}}

2560: \setcounter{equation}{0}

2561: \vskip 1cm \noindent

2562: \noindent {\bf APPENDIX:~ ASYMPTOTIC DISCONTINUITY ANALYSIS }

2563: \vskip 3mm \noindent

2564: 

2565: In Section 4 we analyse triple-regge asymptotic discontinuities

2566: using a generalization of the simple light-cone analysis

2567: that we develop in the following.

2568: 

2569: Consider the box-diagram illustrated in Fig.~A1. 

2570: \begin{center} 

2571: \leavevmode

2572: \epsfxsize=2.5in

2573: \epsffile{chbox1.ps}

2574: 

2575: Fig.~A1 The box diagram.

2576: \end{center}

2577: Initially we ignore the role played by 

2578: numerators and so we consider, in the notation shown,

2579: $$

2580: \eqalign{             

2581: I(s,t,m^2) = &\int d^4k \left[k^2-m^2+i\epsilon\right]^{-1}

2582: \left[\left(p-{q\over 2}+k\right)^2-m^2+i\epsilon\right]^{-1}\cr

2583: &\times \left[(q-k)^2-m^2+i\epsilon\right]^{-1}\left[\left(

2584: p' +{q\over 2}-k\right)^2-m^2+i\epsilon\right]^{-1}.}

2585: \auto\label{lcan1}

2586: $$

2587: This integral is, of course, a function of invariants only even though it is

2588: specified using four momenta. Indeed, we can evaluate the integral using

2589: complex, unphysical, momenta that give physical values of the invariants,

2590: provided we are careful to define the integral via analytic continuation from

2591: the appropriate physical momentum region. Our purpose in this Section is to

2592: discuss momentum dependence of this kind for the simplifying

2593: case of the leading asymptotic behavior, in a manner that we apply 

2594: to much more complicated diagrams in Section 4.

2595: 

2596: For illustrative purposes we set both $q=0$ and $m=0$ in (\ref{lcan1}) 

2597: and ignore infra-red divergences. We can then write

2598: $$

2599: I(s) ~= ~\int d^4k \left[k^2+i\epsilon\right]^{-2}

2600: \left[\left(p +k\right)^2 +i\epsilon\right]^{-1}

2601: \left[\left(p'  -k\right)^2+i\epsilon\right]^{-1}

2602: \auto\label{lcan2}

2603: $$

2604: We choose a particular Lorentz frame and introduce light-cone co-ordinates 

2605: such that 

2606: $$

2607: \eqalign{

2608: p&~= ~\left({P_+ \over 2}~,{P_+ \over 2}~,~\til{0}\right) 

2609: ~ +O\left({1\over  s}\right), ~~~~~P_+ ~\sim ~ s ~\to ~ \infty \cr

2610: p'&~=~  \left({P_+'+ P_-' \over 2}~, {P_+'- P_-' \over 2}~,~

2611: \underline{p}_{\perp}'~\right)   }

2612: \auto\label{lcan3}

2613: $$

2614: so that $s~ = P_+P_-'~[1 + O(1/ s)]~$. We can then write

2615: $$

2616: \eqalign{I(s)~\centerunder{$\large\sim$} {\raisebox{-3mm} 

2617: {$\scriptstyle s\to \infty$}}~~

2618: {1\over 2}\int &                                        

2619: d^2\underline{k}_{\,\perp} dk_+dk_- \left[ k_+k_- -k^2_{\,\perp} + 

2620: i\epsilon\right]^{-2}~

2621: \bigg[ \left( k_+ + P_+ \,\right) k_-

2622: - \underline{k}^2_{\,\perp}

2623: +i\epsilon\bigg]^{-1}  \cr

2624: & \times~

2625: \left[\left(k_+ -P_+' \right)\left(k_- -P_-' \right)- 

2626: (\underline{k}_{\,\perp} - \underline{p}_{\,\perp}')^2

2627: +i\epsilon\right]^{-1} }

2628: \auto\label{lcan4}

2629: $$

2630: 

2631: To obtain a non-zero answer by closing the $k_+$ contour, with $k_-$ and 

2632: $k_{\perp}$ fixed, the three poles given by the three square brackets of 

2633: (\ref{lcan4}) must

2634: not be on the same side of the contour. This requires $ 0 <k_-< P_-'$ and,

2635: in this case, the $k_+$ contour can be closed to pick up only

2636: the pole in the last bracket. This gives 

2637: $$

2638: k_+ ~=~ P_+' +

2639: {(\underline{k}_{\,\perp} - \underline{p}_{\,\perp}')^2

2640: - i\epsilon \over \left(k_- -P_-' \right)}

2641: \auto\label{lcan40}

2642: $$

2643: which is finite and so can be neglected compared to $P_+$. Note also that 

2644: $$

2645: k_- \sim 0,~~ {k_{\perp}}^2 \sim 0 ~~=> ~~k_+~\sim ~2k_0~ \sim 

2646: ~{{p'}^2 \over P_-'}

2647: \auto\label{5an}

2648: $$

2649: (we use this approximation in the analysis of 

2650: Section 4). We thus obtain, 

2651: $$

2652: I(s)~\centerunder{$\large\sim$} {\raisebox{-3mm} 

2653: {$\scriptstyle s\to \infty$}}~~\pi i\int 

2654: d^2\underline{k}_{\perp} \left[ -k^2_{\perp} + 

2655: i\epsilon \right]^{-2} ~\int_0^{P_-'} dk_-  

2656: \left[k_- -P_-' \right]^{-1}\left[ P_+ k_-

2657: - \underline{k}^2_{\perp}

2658: +i\epsilon \right]^{-1} 

2659: \auto\label{lcan5}

2660: $$

2661: 

2662: We are specifically interested in the leading real and imaginary parts of 

2663: (\ref{lcan5}). They are given by the logarithm generated by 

2664: the pole factor containing $P_+$ as it approaches the $k_- = 0$ end-point of 

2665: the integration. If we keep only the integration over $0 < k_- < \lambda P_-'$ 

2666: and take $\lambda << 1$ so that we can 

2667: make the approximation $k_- / P_-'~ \sim 0$ we obtain

2668: $$

2669: \eqalign{ I(s)~& \centerunder{$\large\sim$} {\raisebox{-3mm} 

2670: {$\scriptstyle s\to \infty$}}~~

2671: \pi i\int 

2672: d^2\underline{k}_{\perp} \left[ -\underline{k}^2_{\perp} + 

2673: i\epsilon \right]^{-2} ~

2674: {1 \over P_-'} ~\int_0^{\lambda P_-'} dk_-  

2675: \left( P_+ k_-

2676: - \underline{k}^2_{\perp}

2677: +i\epsilon \right)^{-1} \cr 

2678: &~\sim ~{1 \over P_+ P_-'} ~[\log{(P_+P_-'\lambda  

2679:  -\underline{k}^2_{\perp} + i\epsilon]~J_1(0)} \cr 

2680: &~\sim ~{1 \over s} ~[\log{(s\lambda + i\epsilon]~J_1(0)}

2681: ~ \sim ~{1 \over s} 

2682: ~[\log{s} + i\pi]~J_1(0) }

2683: \auto\label{lcan60}

2684: $$

2685: where $J_1(0) ~\sim ~ \int 

2686: d^2\underline{k}_{\perp} \left[ -\underline{k}^2_{\perp} + 

2687: i\epsilon \right]^{-2}$ is infinite, but would be finite if we added a 

2688: mass to the particle propagators. 

2689: 

2690: As we have indicated, the sign of the imaginary part in (\ref{lcan60}) arises 

2691: directly from the $i\epsilon$ prescription. To obtain the leading imaginary 

2692: part or, equivalently, the leading behavior of the discontinuity in $s$,

2693: it suffices to keep the $i\epsilon$ dependence while dropping the 

2694: $ -\underline{k}^2_{\perp}$ dependence in the $k_-$ integral. 

2695: (\ref{lcan60}) is, of course, independent of $\lambda$. It will, however, be 

2696: useful to note the role of $\lambda$ with respect to the 

2697: analytic structure of $I(s)$ in the $s$-plane. As illustrated in Fig.~A2,

2698: the finite end of the branch-cut asociated with the logarithm in 

2699: (\ref{lcan60}) moves out as $\lambda \to 0$.

2700: \begin{center}

2701: \leavevmode

2702: \epsfxsize=1.6in

2703: \epsffile{chir42.ps}

2704: 

2705: Fig.~A2 $\lambda$-dependence of the branch cut.

2706: 

2707: \end{center}

2708: This is irrelevant to the asymptotic behavior and the 

2709: ``asymptotic discontinuity'' clearly remains unchanged. We, nevertheless, 

2710: exploit this 

2711: simple feature in evaluating multiple discontinuities in Section 4.

2712: Also, although (\ref{lcan60}) is an 

2713: invariant result, for

2714: our purposes it will be useful to keep the dependence on both $P_+$ and $P_-'$

2715: and discuss the dependence of the phase on $P_+$.

2716: 

2717: The initial $k_-$ integration contour for (\ref{lcan60})

2718: is as shown in Fig.~A3(a) with the pole at 

2719: $ k_- = \underline{k}_{\perp}^2/ P_+$ indicated by a dot.

2720: \begin{center}

2721: \leavevmode

2722: \epsfxsize=4.5in

2723: \epsffile{conts.ps}

2724: 

2725: Fig.~A3 Integration Contours for (a) (\ref{lcan5})~ (b) 

2726: ~$P_+ \to~ e^{2\pi i}P_+$ ~(c) Fig.~4.4.

2727: \end{center}

2728: As $P_+$ (and therefore $s$)

2729: completes a circle in the complex plane the pole 

2730: moves around the end-point as illustrated in Fig.~A3(b). The result is 

2731: that the phase of the logarithm in (\ref{lcan60}) changes from $\pi$ 

2732: to $-\pi$ and there is a net discontinuity of $2\pi i / s$, as is given 

2733: directly by (\ref{lcan60}).

2734: This is also the result that would be 

2735: obtained by applying directly the standard

2736: cutting rules to Fig.~A1, cut by the thin line, if 

2737: the $k_+$ and $k_-$ integrations are used to put the vertical lines 

2738: on shell. The above discussion is simply an asymptotic analysis of 

2739: how the two cut propagators pinch the integration region to generate 

2740: a branch-point in $s$. Introducing $\lambda$ limits the integration 

2741: region for the original integral such that the pinching only takes place for

2742: $s \sim P_+ ~> 1 /\lambda$. Note also that the residue function $J_1(0)$,

2743: multipying the logarithm in (\ref{lcan60}),

2744: is directly obtained from the original box

2745: diagram by putting the cut lines giving the discontinuity on-shell using 

2746: the longitudinal momentum integrations. This is a very simple example 

2747: (the simplest) of the relationship between a discontinuity and asymptotic

2748: behavior.  

2749: 

2750: In evaluating unphysical (multiple) discontinuities in 

2751: Section 4 we do not assume 

2752: that the standard cutting rules apply. Instead we directly analyse 

2753: the discontinuities produced by logarithms. To understand how a discontinuity

2754: generated by a logarithm can provide leading asymptotic behavior 

2755: we note that the twisted diagram of Fig.~A4, for

2756: $q=0$, differs from that of Fig.~A1 only by $P_+ \to -P_+$.

2757: \begin{center}

2758: \leavevmode

2759: \epsfxsize=2in

2760: \epsffile{chbox2.ps}

2761: 

2762: Fig.~A4 The twisted box diagram.

2763: \end{center}

2764: As a result,

2765: the integration contour and pole position of Fig.~A3(a) is replaced by 

2766: that of Fig.~A3(c). In this case a discontinuity is generated 

2767: for $s< 0$. For

2768: $s>0$ there is no phase generated by Fig.A4 and only the real

2769: logarithms cancel when this diagram is added to that of Fig.~A1. 

2770: The leading behavior 

2771: of the discontinuity in $s$, i.e the imaginary part, produced by the

2772: diagram of Fig.~A1 remains. 

2773: This cancelation of the logarithms is very well-known, of course. 

2774: It is also well known

2775: that the cancelation fails when a non-abelian symmetry group is present

2776: and that a consequence is the reggeization of the gluon.

2777: 

2778: We can briefly summarize the effect of adding numerators to (\ref{lcan1})

2779: as follows.

2780: First we note that the numerator of the internal fermion propagator 

2781: carrying $P_+$ gives an additional $P_+$ factor of the form $\gamma_- P_+$. 

2782: As a consequence, in (\ref{lcan60}), there is the replacement 

2783: $$

2784: ~\int_0 dk_- ~

2785: \left( P_+ k_- + \cdots \right)^{-1} ~~ \to ~\gamma_- P_+ ~ 

2786: \int_0 dk_-  \left( P_+ k_- + \cdots \right)^{-1} ~\sim~ \log{P_+}

2787: \auto\label{lcan61}

2788: $$

2789: and there is no inverse power of $P_+$. Also, each

2790: coupling to a gluon gives a $\gamma$ matrix factor and since the external 

2791: fermion lines are on-shell we can use the asymptotic form of 

2792: the Dirac equation (i.e. $ \gamma_- P_+ \psi ~\sim m ~\psi $) to write

2793: $$

2794: \eqalign{ <P_+|\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_- \gamma_{\nu}|P_+>~& \sim ~

2795: <P_+|{\gamma_- P_+ \over m} ~\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_- \gamma_{\nu}~

2796: {\gamma_- P_+ \over m}|P_+> \cr

2797: &  =~ <P_+|P_+ \gamma_- P_+ |P_+> / m^2~~

2798: \sim P_+ ~/m }

2799: \auto\label{coup}

2800: $$

2801: This gives another power of $P_+$ ($\sim s$) provided that the corresponding

2802: factor of $P_-'$ is present in the finite momentum part of the scattering 

2803: process. Not surprisingly this factor emerges from that part 

2804: which would dominate if $P_-'$ were large. However, we want to 

2805: emphasize that this selection is made only by the need to form a Lorentz 

2806: invariant amplitude from the non-invariant large momentum process.

2807: 

2808: Finally we note that the above analysis goes through with very little

2809: modification if we take both $m^2$ and $q$ to

2810: be non-zero so that (\ref{lcan2}) will not be infra-red divergent. 

2811: 

2812: \newpage

2813: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

2814: 

2815: \bibitem{vg} V.~N.~Gribov, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B139}, 1 (1978),

2816:  G.~'t Hooft, {\it Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.} {\bf B74}, 413 (1999).

2817: 

2818: \bibitem{aj} M.~F.~Atiyah, in {\it Anomalies, Geometry

2819: and Topology}, edited by W.~A.~Bardeen and A.~R.~White (World Scientific, 

2820: Singapore, 1985); R.~Jackiw, ibid. and in

2821: {\it Effects of Dirac's Negative Energy Sea Quantum Numbers},

2822: Dirac Prize lecture, March 1999, hep-th/9903255. 

2823: 

2824: \bibitem{gth} G.~'t~Hooft, {\it Phys. Rep.} {\bf 142}, 357 (1986).

2825: 

2826: \bibitem{pet} D.~Diakonov and V.~Yu.~ Petrov, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B272},

2827: 457 (1986).

2828: 

2829: \bibitem{smi} H.~Leutwyler and A.~Smilga, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D46},

2830: 5607 (1992). 

2831:  

2832: \bibitem{arw02} A.~R.~White, hep-ph/0202169.

2833: 

2834: \bibitem{fkl} E.~A.~Kuraev, L.~N.~Lipatov, V.~S.~Fadin, {\it Sov. Phys.

2835: JETP} {\bf 45}, 199 (1977);

2836: J.~B.~Bronzan and R.~L.~Sugar, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D17}, 

2837: 585 (1978), this paper organizes into reggeon diagrams the results from 

2838: H.~Cheng and C.~Y.~Lo, Phys. Rev. {\bf D13}, 1131 (1976), 

2839: {\bf D15}, 2959 (1977); 

2840: V.~S.~Fadin and V.~E.~Sherman, Sov. Phys. JETP {\bf 45}, 

2841: 861 (1978);

2842: V.~S.~Fadin and L.~N.~Lipatov, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B477},

2843: 767 (1996) and further references therein;

2844: J.~Bartels, {\it Z. Phys.} {\bf C60}, 471 (1993) and further

2845: references therein; A.~R.~White, {\it Int. J. Mod. Phys.} 

2846: {\bf A8}, 4755 (1993). 

2847: 

2848: \bibitem{gw} P.~Goddard and A.~R.~White, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B17}, 1, 45

2849: (1970). As in \cite{arw01} we emphasize that the full triple-regge

2850: limit is distinct from the

2851: ``triple-regge'' limit of the one-particle inclusive 

2852: cross-section that is a ``non-flip helicity-pole'' limit.

2853: 

2854: \bibitem{arw84} A.~R.~White, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D29}, 1435 (1984).

2855: 

2856: \bibitem{arw01} A.~R.~White,  {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D63} 016007, (2001). 

2857: 

2858: \bibitem{arw98} A.~R.~White,  {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D58}, 074008 (1998).

2859: 

2860: \bibitem{arw001} A.~R.~White, {\it Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.}

2861: {\bf 96}, 277-286 (2001) - hep-ph/0008267; see 

2862: also Lectures in the Proceedings of the Theory Institute on Deep-Inelastic

2863: Diffraction, Argonne National Laboratory (1998).

2864: 

2865: \bibitem{cri}  A.~A.~Migdal, A.~M.~Polyakov and K.~A.~Ter-Martirosyan, 

2866: {\it Zh. Eksp. Teor.  Fiz.} {\bf 67}, 84 (1974); 

2867: H.~D.~I.~Abarbanel and J.~B.~Bronzan, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D9}, 2397 (1974).

2868: 

2869: \bibitem{fl0} V.~S.~Fadin and L.~N.~Lipatov, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B406},

2870: 259 (1993).

2871: 

2872: \bibitem{ste} O.~Steinmann, {\it Helv. Phys. Acta.} {\bf 33} 257, 347 (1960);

2873: H. Epstein, in  

2874: {\it Structural Analysis Of Collision Amplitudes} edited by R.~Balian

2875: and D.~Iagolnitzer (Amsterdam 1976), and references therein.

2876: 

2877: \bibitem{arw00} A.~R.~White, hep-ph/0002303 

2878: - {\it The Past and Future of S-Matrix Theory}

2879: in {\it Scattering}, edited by E.~R.~Pike and P.~Sabatier 

2880: (Academic Press, London) and references therein.

2881: 

2882: \bibitem{cg} S.~Coleman and B.~Grossman, {\it Nucl. Phys. }

2883: {\bf B203}, 205 (1982).

2884: 

2885: \end{thebibliography}

2886: 

2887: 

2888: \end{document}

2889: 

2890: